Wildlands

in Our Civilisation

FROM THE FOREWORD

Perspective on wilderness has changed notably in the fifteen
years that have elapsed since the first biennial wilderness con-
ference the Sierra Club sponsored.

The opening sentence of the mimeographed summary of the
initial (1949) conference says, ''The basic problem of wilder-
ness is how to enjoy it today and still have it tomorrow."
Those were easy days, when problems were neat. That con-
ference was chiefly concerned with what should go on within
the borders of wilderness in order to keep human impact to a
minimum and recreation value to an optimum.

Subsequent conferences broadened the view: enjoyment of
wilderness, good though it might be, was far transcended. A
more important concern was to see that whatever wilderness
borders there were should encompass enough of the remnant
within. Wilderness should have the best protection man could
devise in regulations, law, and ethics. In this remnant, nature
indeed had rights, whether or not the law yet recognized them ;
and the preservation of wilderness was one of man's responsi-
bilities to the planet he walks on so briefly and yearns to see
his kind survive upon.

Yes, the early days were comfortable. The hikers and rang-
ers and packers could get together and seek ways to extend
their good times in the High Sierra. They did more than that,
of course, but not a great deal more. There was more to do,
much more, however, if there was to be any wilderness left in
which human impact could be of any moment.

All this can be said because hindsight is so prescient. It is
convenient to publish last what should have been the first of
four volumes on eight wilderness conferences. Now one book
can introduce a trio, and indicate where the public mind is
going.

This volume does not have the homogeneity of the earlier
three because it is not restricted to the theme of a single con-
ference. But what is here deserves to be within one set of
covers, readily available to all who wish to work for wilderness
preservation.

The early conferences were accompanied by recommenda-
tions voted by those who attended the final session. It is sober-
ing to review the list, to see how much is an inventory of tasks
undone and how much is now a tabulation of achievements.
The moral may be that polite conservationists leave no mark
except the scars on the land that could have been prevented.
Wondering why they were not prevented, I suspect a further
moral: we must be wary of people who evince "the relaxed
confidence of those who have their creative achievement safely
behind them." The line is borrowed from C. P. Snow. We still
need conservationists who will attempt the impossible, achiev-
ing it because they aren't aware how impossible it is.

David B rower

San Francisco, December 18, 1964

Wildlands
in Our
Civilization
$5.75

Digitized by tlie Internet Arcliive
in 2014

https://arcliive.org/details/wildlandsinourciOObrow

WILDLANDS IN OUR CIVILIZATION

Philip Hyde

would light all this mountain land soon

and we hope it will always reveal wilderness there
in the avenues of unspoiled forest,

in the flashing waters.

in the friendly lower gardens and grassy alplands,
up at timberline and in tundra,

on the glaciers and peaks.

David Simons

Other people will want to be walking our trails,

up where the tree reaches high for the cloud,
where the flower takes the summer wind with beauty,
and the summer rain, too.

They will want to discover for themselves

the wildness that the ages have made perfect.

Philip Hyde

Cedric Wright

Wildlands

CONTRIBUTORS

John Collier
Bruce M. Kilgore

A, Starker Leopold
Wallace Stegner

Lowell Sumner
LeeMerriman Talbot

Llov^ard Zahniser

and participants in the discussions
oj the first jive Biennial Wilderness Conferences, 1949-1 9 JJ

edited, with contributions, by|Davtc^Brower

Our Civili^tion

SIERRA CLUB • SAN FRANCISCO

The Sierra Club is a national conservation organization founded in
1892 by John Muir to explore, enjoy, and protect the nation's scenic
resources of parks, wilderness, wildhfe, and the recreation derived
from them. There are more than 27,000 members; 20,000 have joined
the club in the last decade in support of an active program to pre-
serve the scenic resources. The main headquarters and several chap-
ters are in CaHfornia. There are also chapters headquartering in
Seattle, Reno, Chicago, Santa Fe, and New York. The program is in
independent support of the pubHc interest as the club sees it. The
club is managed by an elected board of directors and is affiliated
with the Natural Resources Council of America and the Interna-
tional Union for Conservation.

The club has been well aware of the dual aspect of conservation,
calhng on the one hand for much wise utilization of resources on at
least ninety per cent of our land, and on the other hand for some
wise preservation on at most ten per cent of our land. The first kind
of conservation is difficult enough, the second ever so much more so.
In the effort to further both, the club had roles in creating the Forest
Service and the National Park Service. It has profound respect for
the people and achievements of both agencies but reserves the right
occasionally to disagree with them.

Membership is open to those who are sympathetic with the club's
purposes and wish to support its program. Dues are nominal.

Address: Mills Tower, San Francisco 4.

Copyright, 1964, by the Sierra Club
Library of Congress Card Catalog Number 64-18169
Manufactured in the United States of America
by Vail-Ballou Press, Inc., Binghamton, New York
(halftones: Gillick Press, Berkeley, CaHfornia)
Designed by David Brower

FOREWORD

Perspective on wilderness has changed notably in the fifteen years
that have elapsed since the first biennial wilderness conference the
Sierra Club sponsored.

The opening sentence of the mimeographed summary of the initial
(1949) conference says, "The basic problem of wilderness is how to
enjoy it today and still have it tomorrow." Those were easy days, when
problems were neat. That conference was chiefly concerned with what
should go on within the borders of wilderness in order to keep human
impact to a minimum and recreation value to an optimum. It is dis-
concerting to note how minimum and optimum push the issue com-
fortably away.

Subsequent conferences broadened the view: enjoyment of wilder-
ness, good though it might be, was far transcended. A more important
concern was to see that whatever wilderness borders there were should
encompass enough of the remnant within. Wilderness should have the
best protection man could devise in regulations, law, and ethics. In this
remnant, nature indeed had rights, whether or not the law yet recognized
them; and the preservation of wilderness was one of man's responsibili-
ties to the planet he walks on so briefly and yearns to see his kind sur-
vive upon.

Yes, the early days were comfortable. The hikers and rangers and
packers could get together and seek ways to extend their good times in
the High Sierra. They did more than that, of course, but not a great
deal more. There was more to do, much more, however, if there was to
be any wilderness left in which human impact could be of any moment.

All this can be said because hindsight is so prescient. It is convenient
to publish last what should have been the first of four volumes on
eight wilderness conferences. Now one book can introduce a trio, and
indicate where the public mind is going.

WaUace Stegner starts this volume with his appraisal of where 1958
found us in the wilderness-preservation movement — a fix we always
will be in as long as there is beautiful country to be held and loved
for what it is, however coveted for inferior uses. Five biennial wilder-
ness conferences and a brief aftermath brought us to where Mr. Stegner

[11

12 Foreword

found us. Three more conferences followed, and each needed a sep-
arate volume; further volumes ought to be warranted in years to come.

This volume does not have the homogeneity of the earlier three
because it is not restricted to the theme of a single conference. But
what is here deserves to be within one set of covers, readily available to
all who wish to work for wilderness preservation.

The early conferences were accompanied by recommendations voted
by those who attended the final session. It is sobering to review the
list, to see how much is an inventory of tasks undone and how much is
now a tabulation of achievements. The moral may be that polite con-
servationists leave no mark except the scars on the land that could
have been prevented. Wondering why they were not prevented, we
suspect a further moral: we must be wary of people who evince "the
relaxed confidence of those who have their creative achievement safely
behind them." The line is borrowed from C. P. Snow. We still need
conservationists who will attempt the impossible, achieving it because
they aren't aware how impossible it is.

Whatever the success quotient so far, people are awakening, and we
wish to thank especially those who contributed to the awakening. We
would also like to thank in advance those who will actually use this
information — use it physically, emotionally, intellectually in such a
dynamic way that there will always be wilderness to awaken to. Dynamic
thinking and dynamic action: only these can perpetuate our past
achievements and maintain the momentum of our cause in the future.

On March 4, 1959, in an address before the Twenty-fourth North
American Wildlife Conference in New York City, I tried to describe
some of the broader meanings of wilderness in the search for broader
support for it. Those remarks are included here, six years later, to
serve the same purpose:

* * * *

The news has probably been kept from you but the story is being
given credence out on the Coast that New York is about to make way,
within the next decade, for California: the land of sunshine, oranges,
and Forest Lawn is about to become the nation's most populous state.
So I have been sent back here on a search for space, for land on which
California can resettle its surplus citizens.

I wish that this pretense were as humorous as it is ridiculous. But
it isn't. Since I left San Francisco three days ago some four thousand
people have added themselves to the California population perma-
nently— and the number is permanent even if the people are mortally
not so. This sort of addition has been going on all year, ever since the
War for that matter, and isn't expected to slow down. This is what

FOREWORD 13

causes our earthquakes, such as the one the papers just reported,
although no scientist has yet made the announcement. You see, the
land is merely adjusting itself to the weight of the new people! So now
suburban sprawl has spread the full thirty miles south of San Francisco
along both sides of the San Francisco Bay. For each new house there
is at least one new automobile, in keeping with the current conviction
that every man needs two tons of steel to get him from his bed to his
desk and some 300 square feet of pavement to park the steel on at both
ends of the run. Mass transportation is withering, but we are solving
this little annoyance with vision and vigor.

We solve our problem with what you call throughways and turn-
pikes and what we call, by strange semantic twist, freeways. Why
free? I don't know. Not in money, for they cost millions. Not in land,
for they cost us thousands of acres of our most productive soil. They
aren't free in movement, either. Our engineers boast that we can travel
half the length of the Bay without meeting a stoplight. (Our Spanish
predecessors could make the same claim!) But they're talking in
pleasant theories, not of actual fact. All too often rush hours find a
given freeway jammed bumper to bumper and the array of stoplights
stretched out before you is something to behold. Our most popular
disk-jockey program at rush hour spends less time on music than on
news of the latest jam, and what route you should try to take to get
around it, if you're not caught in it yet. Some of our freeways become
obsolete before the ribbon is cut in our standard opening ceremony.

That, in a slightly distorted view, is how we are solving our prob-
lem. And if Northern California thinks it has a problem, you can
pardon Southern California for laughing. Their growth is three times
as fast as ours. No need to worry, of course. After all, the universe
is an expanding universe.

So we'd like to expand your way. What can you offer? How many
half-acre lots, with space for a 3- or 4-bedroom ranch house plus
garden? With plenty of good schooling near by. Not far from where
we want to work. Smog-free. A small park close by — where the chil-
dren can find playground apparatus, the youths can enjoy big-muscle
play, where the parents can stroll and unwind the week's tension,
and where elders can sit and watch and remember when the days
weren't so tense.

And by the way, can you add to these things, what with the shorter
work week and longer vacation we're counting on — can you also add
some untrammeled seashore and mountains?

I suspect that I've pushed a troubling point far enough, but let
me add Ossa on Pelion — two cheering statistics. In this century the

14 Foreword

world has used up, and has lost forever, more natural resources than
has all previous history. And there are now alive, with an unprece-
dented appetite for resources, 10 per cent of all the men who ever
lived on this earth. Twenty-five billion people in the long miUion
years since the dawn of man. Two and a half billion since Yellow-
stone National Park was created, people using up more resources,
including space, than all the rest, and at greater speed. Yes, using
up all the resources available to mankind except the resource of re-
straint.

While the ushers pass out the sackcloth and ashes, contemplate these
figures. But please don't take time to check my arithmetic. It comes
from a good source, but the accuracy of the source doesn't really matter.
Time is running out. Whatever the time left, we can do better with it
than we are doing. I agree with Allen Morgan, who says about wild open
spaces that 'Vhat we save in the next few years is all that will ever
be saved."

The important opportunity is to accept the fact that we are con-
fronted with a problem the hkes of which our predecessors hardly
dreamed of, that it is a problem that man created and that men can
solve — but not by reaching for a tranquilizer and curling up with the
slick magazine that reassures us, with charts and diagrams in three
colors, that science will save us; science, unaided by people.

* * *

If you feel the need, about now, for a draft of fresh air, be assured
that I do too, and that is what I'm here to talk about. About wildness
— and wilderness, where the best of wildness hves. Wilderness is fairly
close to the best place of all in which to find a draft of fresh air, in
which to take stock, in which to find yourself, discover the you that
so many distractions have kept you away from so long that "the life
you lead is not your own."

What about wilderness? What is it, where is how much of it? For
whom and why? And if so, how can we keep some for a still more
crowded world than ours, a world that will probably need the raw
materials of wilderness more than we think we do, and that will need
the spiritual resources ever so much more than we do?

We could easily devote an hour's discussion to each of these ques-
tions. But let me assure any of you who is tempted to rush for the
exit that I shall limit myself instead to no more than a few minutes'
musing on all the questions put together.

But first, a definition of wilderness is in order.

Mrs. Malaprop might have said that wilderness is a place where

FOREWORD 15

the hand of man has not set foot. But she didn't. She had not heard
of the kind of wilderness, as a concept, that we are talking about.
Not that it's exactly a new concept. The prophet Isaiah seems to have
had it in mind when he wrote what was translated as ^'Woe unto them
that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place,
that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!"

Moses found opportunity for his people in wilderness — wilderness
much of which was turned to desert before the Sermon on the Mount
admonished man to consider the lilies of the field — (the natural field I
assume) — and how they were arrayed. That particular wilderness was
subsequently utterly stripped of its verdure by man, including the
exploitation of the Cedars of Lebanon, which went down to the sea in
ships.

To compress the history of the wilderness idea into a few lines: The
Middle Ages, and nothing. Then the Renaissance, and Conrad Gesner
finding reason for the admiration of mountains. Very httle more until
William Blake worried about those dark Satanic mills. More recently
Olmsted, Emerson, Thoreau, and Muir. Finally the explosion of man
across the earth, and here, in the United States, wilderness vanishing
with such velocity that we knew, inescapably, that man alone was re-
sponsible for the loss. The 1920's and the Forest Service trying hard,
under the leadership of Aldo Leopold and Robert Marshall, to define
what should not happen in wilderness. In 1930 Robert Marshall defin-
ing what man should find in wilderness, ought to find, had to find if
the spirit that stood him upright was not to perish in an overcivi-
lized lukewarm world.

Marshall used the word wilderness "to denote a region which con-
tains no permanent inhabitants, possesses no possibility of conveyance
by mechanical means, and is sufficiently spacious that a person crossing
it must have the experience of sleeping out." Survival in it, he said,
is up to you. Find environment in it; don't bring one with you.

This idea of wilderness, new though it is, is now quite widely ac-
cepted. It isn't yet underwritten by federal law, but it does appear,
strangely, in an international treaty on nature protection and wildlife
preservation in the Western Hemisphere which was signed by the
United States 18 years ago. In this treaty wilderness is defined as "a
region under public control characterized by primitive conditions of
flora, fauna, transportation, and habitation wherein there is no pro-
vision for the passage of motorized transportation and all commercial
developments are excluded."

Let me add one more definition and then move on. This one comes
from the Wilderness Bill: "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas

1 6 Foreword

where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recog-
nized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untram-
meled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."

This is a lot of detail about definition. Why? Because when someone
is about to be tempted to cash in on a priceless heirloom rather than
work a little harder for the money instead, it is high time that he look
hard at that heirloom, find out what it means to him, whether he should
let it slip away or pass it on to his son instead, as it was passed on to
him.

My analogy isn't very good, for wilderness goes far beyond being
a mere heirloom. There is no sentimentality about wilderness.

As Howard Zahniser, of The Wilderness Society, has put it: 'We
work for wilderness preservation not primarily for the right of a mi-
nority to have the kind of fun it prefers, but rather to ensure for every-
one the perpetuation of areas where human enjoyment and the ap-
prehension of the interrelations of the whole community of life are
possible, and to preserve for all the freedom of choosing to know the
primeval if they so wish."

And we work hard, with a sense of urgency. The wilderness we now
have is all the wilderness we shall ever have in America. There is
little left — less than one-third acre per person in the United States
if you count all the wilderness that has any administrative protection
in our national parks and forests and wildlife refuges and on Indian
lands. One-third acre per person today; less per person as our popu-
lation expands still further; all of it subject to being struck out by
an administrator's pen.

I say all this about wilderness because it is the essence of the wilds
we need around us. Since it lives but once, there should be ample
opportunity to review the death sentence that so many people in the
chambers of commercialism would like to inflict upon wilderness.

Many of us feel that wilderness should have an automatic stay of
execution, and that Congress should provide it.

Hence the Wilderness Bill — the proposal to establish a National
Wilderness Preservation System.

There has already been a decade of careful study leading up to the
present Wilderness Bill. There is immediate need for what William H.
Whyte, Jr., calls "retroactive planning" — for protecting now the land
we think is needed, then rationalizing later how right we were all
along to have done it. If too much wilderness is protected this way,
we can always correct the situation later. If too little is protected, if

FOREWORD 1 7

too much has been turned over to exploitation, then we cannot unfry
the egg.

Wilderness protection must not be delayed. If you will remember
your first aid course, you will remember these priorities: bleeding,
breathing, shock. It does little good, if a patient is bleeding to death,
to sit down and study objectively what kind of bandage will be needed
on the wound. You get in there and stop the bleeding. Otherwise you'll
have nothing to bandage but a corpse.

Support for the Wilderness Bill comes from no hastily organized bat-
talion of rugged hikers, no ^Vilderness lobby"; it reflects broad public
concern about direction. It reflects growing conviction that as Dr.
Daniel B. Luten puts it, ^'the nation does not exist to serve its economy";
that there must be more public participation in the treatment of the
single heritage of land that must serve all the generations, and that to
"leave these things to the experts" is to resort to absentee citizenship.

It also reflects the dawning realization that Growth without end is
soon monstrous, then malignant, and finally, lethal — that an economy
based upon incessant growth may well turn out, in the long run, to
have been a chain-letter economy, in which we pick up the handsome
early returns, and either our children or theirs find the mailbox empty,
their resources having been expended by us.

I was trying to make this point in Berkeley a short time ago and a
question came up from the floor: Could we afford to do anything less
than keep growing inasmuch as that was what the Russians were doing?
While I struggled ineptly with a reply. Dr. Luten came to my rescue.
"You've heard of the game of 'chicken,' haven't you?" he asked. "It's
sort of a Russian roulette on wheels. Two juveniles head directly toward
each other at high speed on the highway, and the first one who turns to
avert the crash is chicken. We frown on such behavior in adolescents,
but we seem to accept it as national policy."

Supporters of wilderness — and of the restraint that is inherent in
preserving it — are fond of civilization. They like it well enough not to
want it to take too many steps, with "the bland leading the bland"
(Galbraith), down the road paved with good inventions, on which there
may be no turning.

Whoever should look for the words, "Wilderness Lobby," on the
door of some office near Capitol Hill would be looking in the wrong
direction. He should look instead at the land — all the land the country
is ever going to have for all the U.S. citizens ever to be born — and
the rapidity with which many of its nonrenewable resources have been
used up for so few. He should resist escape into the "Science will save
us" club until he has counted the ever-more-perplexing problems the

1 8 Foreword

saving is bringing us. And he should look at a few recent books that
cannot be isolated from a common concern about an uncommon threat
to civilization: Brown's The Challenge of Man's Future; Galbraith's
The Affluent Society; Packard's Hidden Persuaders ; Whyte's The
Organization Man and The Exploding Metropolis ; Keats's The Insolent
Chariots; Huxley's Brave New World Revisited; Gary's The Roots of
Heaven; Callison's American Natural Resources; and Leopold's A
Sand County Almanac. The list ends too soon and is almost humor-
ously disparate. Yet it has a common denominator of substantial un-
easiness about what we are letting happen to us, about things that are
forcing us into a corner where we must choose to live with less or not
at all, witnessing instead, in that last blinding flash, the final glimpse
of struggle between economies seeking to out-exploit one another.

The connection between the ability of civilization to protect wild-
ness and the ability for civilization to survive is not so tenuous as we
might wish. It is worth energetic scrutiny, and at length. For the kind
of thinking that motivates the grab for what's left on the bottom of
of the barrel — the pitiful fragment of resources in the remaining wil-
derness— is the kind of thinking that has lost this country friends it can-
not afford to lose. The ultimate in selfishness is evidenced in those
opponents of wilderness preservation who have demanded an open door
for exploiting wilderness while they slam another door in the face of
friends needed overseas and north of the border. Don't import oil,
wood, plywood, lead, zinc, the opponents say, whatever such restric-
tion may do to the economy of our friends. Don't import them because
we have more than enough of our own. And concurrently opponents
urge that nothing interfere with their looking for still more of their
own — anywhere in the public's dedicated wilderness!

The international economic and political difficulties the wilderness
opponents would thus aggravate are serious. The difficulties may not
stem from their opposition to wilderness, but there is certainly guilt
by association. They stem from what could be called a philosophy of
last things first.

It has remained for a physicist to single out the biological peril.
As Dr. J. A. Rush put it: "When man obliterates wilderness, he re-
pudiates the evolutionary force that put him on this planet. In a deeply
terrifying sense, man is on his own."

As a handy example, I have beside me in my hand a small object,
about the size of the letter o, which the evolutionary force has built.
Within it is embodied a direct living connection all the way back
through all the aeons to the very first appearance of life on this planet.
Against that space of time man's life span is insignificant, his ken is

FOREWORD 19

barely significant, the entire duration of mankind is hardly noticeable.
The object, of course, is a seed. Packed in a fragment of its space is
all the know-how needed to perpetuate redwoods on earth, even if
every other seed and existing redwood were to be wiped out. Included
in that know-how is the ability, should a once-in-a-century flood bury
the base of the mature tree in silt, to activate the pushing of new roots —
out through bark two feet thick, and out at just the right level below
the new surface of soil in which the tree now stands.

I know of no research to determine in just what gene area this par-
ticular know-how exists, or what its biochemical formula is. Fortunately,
no scientist has to know this. But the tree that otherwise could not
survive does know it. Man did not have to steady the Teacher's hand
when it found out, or when all the other forms of life found out how to
perpetuate themselves, through good times and bad, in the wilderness
they are designed to live in together, in dynamic equilibrium.

Does man dare be so arrogant as to assume that he must take it
upon himself to steady the omnipotent force throughout the land, even
to the last two per cent of wilderness? Perhaps Dr. Rush had some
question like this in mind when he spoke of wilderness, the evolutionary
force, and the terrifying prospect if man tries to stay on this planet
without it. And Thoreau, too, when he wrote: "In wildness is the
preservation of the world."

The Wilderness Bill is a needed step toward the recognition of this
truth. Not just any bill, but a strong one, recognizing as national policy
that wilderness is where you find it and keep it. There is little left
to find, and scant little time remaining in which to resolve to keep some
of that little — to rescue it from the raw materialism which threatens
not only wilderness, but survival too.

* * * H«

My protracted foreword, like the wilderness conferences, began long
ago. Before the book could appear, two major events took place. We
may now celebrate the fact that the Wilderness Act was signed Sep-
tember 3, 1964, by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Before that could
happen, conservationists were shocked by the death of Howard Zahniser,
who made the Act (and this book) possible. I would like to dedicate
this book to his memory, and in his memory, to all who strive to equal
his public service. Long may Howard Zahniser's example endure in
mankind's thoughts about wilderness, and in what those thoughts lead
man to do for it!

David B rower

San Francisco
December 18, 1964

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Sierra Club is grateful to its members and friends who made
the first five biennial wilderness conferences possible, especially to
Charlotte Mauk and Doris (Mrs. Richard M.) Leonard, who organized
them, and to all the participants in these early conferences. Special
consideration goes, too, to the contributors to this book: John Collier,
Bruce M. Kilgore, A. Starker Leopold, Wallace Stegner, Lowell Sumner,
Lee Merriam Talbot, and the late Howard Zahniser.

We acknowledge with thanks the permission of Alan Swallow, Pub-
lisher, Sage Books, Denver, Colorado, to reprint John CoUier's con-
tribution from his recent book From Every Zenith, and to John Collier
himself for his concurrent permission. We give credit to the Sierra Club
Bulletin for permission to reprint several articles and to The Con-
gressional Record, in which the address "De Facto Wilderness: What is
its Place?" appeared, as well as the address of Mr. Kilgore, "Wilder-
ness and the Self-interest of Man."

Our thanks go also to the photographers: Cedric Wright, Philip
Hyde, David Simons, Rondal Partridge, Tom Miller, Joseph LeConte,
and Lowell Sumner ; and to United States Forest Service photographers
Paul Bieler, D. Swan, and L. J. Prater.

The final essential touches, in vital editorial and production assist-
ance, make us grateful to Lewis Ellingham, Frangois Leydet, and
Susana Cox.

Further, we acknowledge in advance the help of all those who,
upon working their way through the thoughts expressed in all these
conferences, add their own thoughts and action and do something
for wilderness themselves. — D.B.

CONTENTS

Introduction^ 33
Wallace Stegner:

The War Between the Rough Riders and the Bird Watchers, 43

Conference Papers and Related Statements, 45
Howard Zahniser: How Much Wilderness Can We Afford to Lose? 46
David R. Brower: Wilderness — Conflict and Conscience, 52
Lee Merriman Talbot: Wilderness Overseas, 75
A. Starker Leopold: Wilderness and Culture, 81
Lowell Sumner: Are Beavers Too Busy? 86
David R. Brower: De Facto Wilderness: What Is Its Place? 103
Bruce M. Kilgore: Wilderness and the Selj-Interest oj Man, 111
John Collier: Wilderness and Modern Man, 115

Summaries oj the Proceedings oj the First Five Biennial
Wilderness Conjerences, 129

First Conference, 130

Second Conference, 139

Third Conference, 146

Fourth Conference, 156

Fifth Conference, 165

The Rough Riders Versus the Bird Watchers

"It used to be that when so-called 'resource-development' interests
undertook one of their raids against the public lands, Bernard deVoto
would appear like the Lone Ranger, trail the villains, and end by yank-
ing out their shirt-tails and setting fire to them. If he were alive now, as
God knows I wish he were, he would be warming up his blowtorch, not
because what he used to call Two-Gun Desmond is shooting up the town
again but because conservationists are moving to make at least part of
the public domain permanently safe from raids. . . .

"... the National Wilderness Preservation Bill . . . would establish
on federally owned land a system of wilderness areas that could not be
broken up without the consent of Congress.

"A wilderness is defined ... as 'an area where the earth and its com-
munity of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor
who does not remain.'. . .

Glacier Peak and Suiattle River forest, Northern Cascades
by Philip Hyde

"... Here man's travels would leave only trails.

"Two-Gun Desmond — quite aside from the fact that such a senti-
ment profoundly puzzles him — is opposed : his travels characteristically
leave overgrazed ranges, erosion gulleys, ruined watersheds, muddy
streams, gravel-choked creek beds, stumps, bulldozer tracks, and other
signs of Progress.

"Devastated forest land surrounding Abernathy
lookout tower near Ryderwood, Washington.

This area once
was covered by a magnificent
stand of Douglas fir and was clear cut
using high lead logging by the Long Bell
Lumber Company. Repeated fires after logging have
made this area practically a wasteland."
Forest Service legend. Photo by L. J . Prater.

"... the wilderness areas would still enjoy multiple use, if the word
'multiple' implies, as I think it does, more than two. The customary uses
of any national forest, in order of their practical importance, are water-
shed protection, recreation, conservation, selective logging, grazing, and
mining. To these must be added some 'impractical' uses. A forest, and
most especially a wilderness forest, is a vast research laboratory, a vast
schoolroom, a vast nondenominational church. These functions are a
good deal less trivial than the resources of timber, minerals, and grass
that may be locked up. But a succession of biologists, scholars, and na-
ture lovers who testified to these values of wilderness brought indulgent
smiles to the faces of the rough riders at the meetings.

"To Desmond, multiple use has always meant my use.

Sheep driveway, Cache National Forest, Utah
Forest Service photo by Paul Bieler

"The urgency behind the move to protect remaining primeval lands
by congressional action [was] that much was already lost; that uncon-
trolled gutting of resources, especially in the West, left ruined land that
could never in ten lifetimes be brought back; that wilderness once spoiled
was gone forever; and that wilderness for half a dozen reasons was im-
portant. . . . The reason Desmond fights the Wilderness Bill even though
the lands it would reserve are already reserved is that he hopes sometime
he can un-reserve them, and an administrative order is a whole lot easier
to break than an act of Congress.

"It is interesting to listen to him as he testifies.

"He is always a friend to wilderness, and likes to see it protected.
But this bill would reserve far too much of it. And why does it all have to
be set aside in the West, thereby locking up the resources on which the
West must depend for its payrolls and its growth?

"The nature lovers who testified to the spiritual value of nature un-
modified and unspoiled by man, and who drew smiles from the rough
riders at the hearings, were not talking nonsense. In the long run they
were not being impractical. They were speaking of something absolutely

vital to many of us now, and something that will be three times as neces-
sary to our grandchildren. Their concern was not a selfish attempt to
grab off a special and exclusive form of recreation, but the abiding con-
cern of thinking and feeling people to preserve what helps keep men hu-
man, to save our contact with the nature of which we are a part.

''The rough riders have never exercised themselves overmuch about
the future, or about any considerations except economic ones. They don't
conceive that they owe the future anything, and neither did their grand-
fathers. . . . The bird watchers hope that by work and by renunciations
today they may give their children and coming generations, in the com-
ing age of steel and concrete and plastic and crowding and the accumu-
lating carbon compounds of human and automotive waste, some human
notion of what it is to be a man, an evolved mammal, part of the natural
world.

"If the Wilderness Bill loses . . . the nation will have lost, the West
will have lost, the future will have lost. In spite of [Utah's] former Sena-
tor Watkins's feeling that we ought to help establish a few wildernesses
in other parts of the country and let the West get on with its lumbering
and mining, it has never been man's gift to make wildernesses. But he
can make deserts, and has."

Overgrazed sheep range.

U. S. Forest Service photo by D. Swan

photographs by Rondal Partridge

Sierra Club Clean-up Trips

Wilderness need not suffer severely from human use if steps are taken to
prevent erosion born of neglect. In 1958 the Sierra Club initiated a series
of wilderness trips for volunteers who were willing to clean up badly neg-
lected campsites in the Sierra Nevada.

Thanks to enlightened attitudes of many forest and park rangers
and the hard work of many volunteers, the Sierra wilderness is freer from
litter and debris than it was a decade ago. In addition to providing a
wholesome outlet for youthful energies, the clean-up trips perform a
necessary educational service — a basic training in land ethics.

YOU CAN TAB •
Them With You!

I

A vof«„tcer Sierra Club work porfy ^

•«*r The local pocker hauled these co.s to tho roq<f
head dump In ^cks, eoch weigfe.n, ^

|>oufids when filled. (DateAi.,',^.! ' / /

An empty, ftenened can weighs less fha„ a futt om
o«d tokes less room. A can's hesf woy out of the Sier^
ro IS H>e way it came here ... in your pack or kyock.

Help Keep fhe Wilderness Clean!

SIERRA CLUB

^^'^ «»US TOWIR . SAN FRANCISCO 4, CAUF.

Remember These Things Lost

Music Temple, in the Glen Canyon wilderness, was destroyed by
Glen Canyon dam in 1963. There were alternative sources of electrical
energy then and will be in the foreseeable future. There is nothing to
equal Glen Canyon.

INTRODUCTION

It used to be that when so-called "resource-development" interests
undertook one of their raids against the public lands, Bernard DeVoto
would appear like the Lone Ranger, trail the villains, and end by yank-
ing out their shirt-tails and setting fire to them. If he were alive now, as
God knows I wish he were, he would be warming his blowtorch, not
because what he used to call Two-Gun Desmond is shooting up the town
again but because conservationists are moving to make at least part of
the public domain permanently safe from raids. There comes a time in
every horse opera, as Mr. DeVoto knew, when the Better Element sets
out to clean up the Territory.

At issue in 1959 is the National Wilderness Preservation Bill (S. 1123,
Senators Humphrey et al., and H. R. 1960, Reps. Saylor et al.) which
would establish on federally owned land a system of wilderness areas
that could not be broken up without the consent of Congress. A wilder-
ness is defined by the Senate bill as "an area where the earth and its
community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a
visitor who does not remain." Here man's travels would leave only trails.
Two-Gun Desmond — quite aside from the fact that such a sentiment
profoundly puzzles him — is opposed: his travels characteristically leave
overgrazed ranges, erosion gulleys, ruined watersheds, muddy streams,
gravel-choked creek beds, stumps, bulldozer tracks, and other signs of
Progress.

On the face of it, Desmond's concern is odd, since the lands in ques-
tion would seem already out of his reach. All the wilderness proposed by
S. 1123 is already in wilderness status: 22,000,000 acres in national
parks and monuments of a "primeval" kind; 14,000,000 acres in 80
primitive, roadless, wild, or wilderness areas within the national forests;

[ 33

34 Wildlands in Our Civilization

and nearly 14,000,000 in wildlife refuges and ranges. In addition there
are between 4 and 5 million acres in Indian reservations which are man-
aged as wilderness by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; these would become
part of the Wilderness System only by the consent of the tribes which
own them. Of the potential total of around 55,000,000 acres, 15,000,000
are in Alaska and 246,000 in Hawaii ; the bulk of the rest is in the Rocky
Mountains and the Pacific Coast states.

No new agency would be created by the Wilderness Bill. Administra-
tion would remain, for the forest lands, with the Department of Agricul-
ture, and for the park, wildlife, and Indian lands with the Department of
Interior. Unchanged would be the National Park Service's difficult duty
to conserve its scenery unimpaired and at the same to provide for its use
by millions. Unchanged, except to be written into law, would be the
Forest Service's unwritten policy of multiple use. But within the wilder-
ness sections of either forests or parks, no use that destroyed the wilder-
ness character would be permitted. No resorts, ski lifts, installations,
dams. No roads except the essential fire roads and minimum access roads
to private property landlocked by the reservations. No timber cutting or
mining. Grazing, motor boat, and landing field rights, where they now
exist, would continue as nonconforming uses.

These rescued remnants of our once-magnificent wilderness would
"serve the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational,
conservational, and historical use and enjoyment in such manner as will
leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness and
they are conceived by the bill's sponsors as being "for the permanent
good of the whole people." To insure that the people can keep an eye on
their property, and to back up the bureaus charged with the administra-
tion of wilderness policy, the bill would create an unpaid advisory Na-
tional Wilderness Preservation Council composed of the Secretaries of
the Interior and of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Smithsonian, and
three "informed" and "interested" private citizens. Two-Gun Desmond,
because he thinks conservation prevents the "development" of the West,
or because he feels that whatever is good for him or his industry is good
for the public, or because he despises all federal control of the public
lands — which he generally wants "returned" to the states, which never
owned them — is as opposed to the Council as to the wilderness it would
be out to protect.

Actually he is now on the defensive against a conservation movement
that is powerful, bipartisan, and widespread, and that no longer con-
ceives itself to be fighting a hopeless rearguard action against forces of
population and development that will eventually overrun the whole con-
tinent. Nevertheless Desmond and his friends have managed to stall

INTRODUCTION 35

wilderness legislation through two sessions of Congress, and are working
to stall it permanently.

An earlier Wilderness Bill, S. 1176, introduced in the first session of
the 85th Congress by Senator Humphrey and others, encountered both
substantive and procedural objections, even among some people and
agencies friendly to the bill's intentions. After hearings in both House
and Senate, and after careful revision, it was reintroduced in the second
session as S. 4028, again with a potent list of co-sponsors including
Senators Humphrey, Neuberger, Douglas, Morse, and others. It never
reached the floor, but it had another airing before the House and Senate
Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs on July 23, 1958; and when
it appeared that both proponents and opponents would welcome field
hearings in the West, those hearings were scheduled for Bend, Oregon on
November 7, San Francisco on November 10, Salt Lake City on Novem-
ber 12, and Albuquerque on November 14, 1958. Presiding at Bend and
San Francisco was Senator Neuberger, at Salt Lake City, Senator Mur-
ray, and at Albuquerque, Senator Anderson. [Subsequently Senator
Jackson presided over a hearing in Seattle on March 30 and 31, 1959,
and Senator Gold water in Phoenix on April 2. — Ed.]

It would be pleasant to report that the hearings were dramatic and
vital, and that Hke ex-Senator (then Congressman) Barrett's ''Wild
West Show" of 1947 they resulted in a clear-cut triumph of light over
darkness. No such luck. The hearings were, Hke most hearings, pretty
dull, with only a spat between witnesses at Albuquerque to enliven them,
and they produced no dramatic shifting from one side to the other. I
attended only the one in San Francisco, but I do not feel that I have
been deprived. The forces in support and opposition have been clear
ever since the hearings on the original S. 1176 in June 1957. The tran-
script of that hearing runs to 444 pages, that of the July 23 hearing on
S. 4028 to 218. The full transcript of the four western hearings, not yet
available, will run to another thousand more. Only a devoted partisan is
likely to read them. I have seen witness lists and partial transcripts of
them all, and read most of the written statements submitted for the rec-
ord. Some witnesses, especially those favoring the bill, represented only
themselves; but most on both sides represented organizations or said
they did, and many of the organizations and some of the individuals
were present at more than one hearing — some at all four. The lineups
are hauntingly familiar.

Present and vocal in support were representatives of the National
Wildlife Federation, Trustees for Conservation, the Izaak Walton League,

36 Wildlands in Our Civilization

the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, and many
local outdoor clubs. Present and statistical in opposition were the stock-
men's associations, the mining associations, the lumber and pulpwood
associations, the oil and gas associations, the reclamation associations,
the National Forest Recreation Association (resorts), and the chambers
of commerce.

Those same lineups had faced each other in 1947 when Congressman
Barrett led his filibuster westward in an attempt to grab for a few stock-
men great chunks of the public domain. In 1951 (and every year since)
they disputed the Forest Service's right to reduce the numbers of stock
on forest ranges. In 1953 they fought over the tidelands and public lands
policy in general. In 1954 and 1955 they banged heads over the attempt
to build Echo Park dam in Dinosaur National Monument and thus
breach the protective wall around the national parks. In 1957 they
tangled over the proposal to reduce the Three Sisters Wilderness Area in
central Oregon. The opponents knew each other to their inmost viscera,
and their arguments were largely predictable in advance.

So, though the western hearings were judicial, with none of Congress-
man Barrett's virulence, with no stacked meetings or overprivileged wit-
nesses, they were hardly meetings in which either the Committee or the
opposed forces learned anything. They were sounding boards for rival
philosophies, a means of bringing government closer to the people and
publicizing an issue upon which there were deep and even acrimonious
disagreements. These hearings, a somewhat cynical observer might have
said, were four more rounds in the sixth or seventh rematch between old
enemies. In this corner, wearing black guns, the rough riders with their
seconds, the state politicians; in this, wearing knapsacks and binoculars,
the bird watchers.

Over the years the despised bird watchers have won more rounds than
they have lost (their principal losses were on the equivocal tidelands
and on the reduction of the Three Sisters Wilderness), but as their or-
ganized strength has grown, so has the nation's population and the pres-
sures on the public lands both for resources and for mass recreation.
And the bird watchers had a few years of evidence of what one such
Secretary of Interior as Douglas McKay could do to conservation pol-
icies more than half a century old. The national parks are protected to
a degree by the National Park Act of 1916, though the protection does
not extend to the dangers incident on growing population and the need
to develop more and more public accommodations. But the Forest Serv-
ice has no such legislative armor ; its primitive and wilderness areas were
the creation only of a farsighted bureau policy; they are founded only
on an administrative order and could be undone by another order. Under

INTRODUCTION 37

a Secretary so inclined, any Forest Service wilderness could be thrown
back overnight into the multiple-use, timber-cropping, resort-permitting
status of the other 92 per cent of the national forests — a status desirable
for the 92 per cent but fatal for the precious remnant. Even without
change of rules, a national forest like a zoned suburb can be whittled
away by variances and extensions of the permit system.

That was the urgency behind the move to protect remaining primeval
lands by congressional action. Farther back, as far back as Roosevelt
and Pinchot, Powell and McGee, was the beginning of our growing
consciousness that much was already lost; that uncontrolled gutting of
resources, especially in the West, left ruined land that could never in ten
lifetimes be brought back; that wilderness once spoiled was gone for-
ever; and that wilderness for a half dozen reasons was important. All of
our forest reserves, national parks and monuments, wildhfe refuges, stem
from the official and unofficial strenuousness of those bird watchers,
sentimentalists, old ladies, backpackers, and barefoot nature lovers whom
Secretary McKay lumped under the name of "punks." All of our eroded
watersheds, blasted timberlands, and dust-bowl ranges were presented
to us in fee simple by Two-Gun Desmond's grandfather. The reason
Desmond fights the Wilderness Bill even though the lands it would re-
serve are already reserved is that he hopes sometime he can un-reserve
them, and an administrative order is a whole lot easier to break down
than an act of Congress.

It is interesting to listen to him as he testifies.

He is always a friend to wilderness, and likes to see it protected. But
this bill would reserve far too much of it. And why does it all have to be
set aside in the West, thereby locking up the resources on which the
West must depend for its payrolls and its growth? And is there justice in
a bill that would restrict the livelihood of present permittees and per-
mittees as yet unborn? And any wilderness area, roadless and full of
campers, is more in danger from fire and pests than regions more ac-
cessible. And prohibiting dams in the high country where most wilder-
ness lies would seriously hamper water-development plans for all the
western states. And stopping all timber cutting would interfere with
watershed control and the scientific increasing of the run-off.

There are answers to these, and they were patiently put forward at
every hearing. There is not too much wilderness; at the maximum ex-
tension of the Wilderness Preservation System it would incorporate only
2.2 per cent of our land area, and that is a small enough reserve against
present and future pinching. The population of the United States in

38 Wildlands in Our Civilization

the year 2000 may be 400 million, and our supply of every resource, in-
cluding fresh air and living space, will be chillingly smaller. Moreover,
almost all the proposed wilderness is in the West and Alaska because
those are the only places any is left, and it is there only because up to
now it has been protected from Desmond by certain high-minded and
farsighted federal bureaus in the interest of the public at large, includ-
ing the public of Desmond's own state. What resources there may be in
the wilderness areas — and they don't amount to much — are already
"locked up" — that is, they are preserved for the future, with keys for
the future to use in case it needs to unlock them. The losses to the
western states because of the withheld lands and their resources are more
than made up by in-lieu funds, federal road assistance, kickbacks to
states and counties from mineral leases, and in other ingenious ways that
Desmond always forgets to remember. As to fire hazards in the wilder-
nesses, Edward Crafts, Assistant Chief of the Forest Service, has testified
that with smoke jumpers and other modern fire-fighting methods, the
danger of fires in remote areas can be met. And only a small number of
wilderness fires are caused by campers: most are caused by lightning. As
for watersheds, wilderness is their best defender. From wilderness come
few dirty streams to silt up dams lower down ; out of it do come steadier
and more dependable water supplies; on it hes a less vulnerable snow-
pack. The watershed control by timber cutting which is currently an ob-
ject of research by the Forest Service does indeed produce more run-off;
trees that are not there cannot transpire moisture or intercept and evap-
orate snow. But they can't create, either, the sponge of duff, soil, and the
web of living roots that are the abiding essence of a forest watershed,
and the long-range effects of timber cutting cannot be predicted.
Powell's Report on the Lands of the Arid Region in 1879 commented
on the increase of stream-flow that followed settlement in the mountain
states ; but it would be a rash man who would say that a hundred years
of settlement have improved the watersheds there. The Desmonds, as
represented by Mr. Bob Steiling of the Wyoming Natural Resources
Board, are full of enthusiasm for the timber-cutting method of water-
shed control.

But what elevates Desmond's testimony above the level of high com-
edy, which inspires thoughtful laughter, and into the realm of farce,
which ehcits horse laughs, is his sudden, touching affection for the Forest
Service and its principle of multiple use. The opposition to the Wilder-
ness Bill has its eye primarily on the national forest wildernesses, for
only in the national forests is there any appreciable logging, grazing, or
mining allowed. Only there is there a fair chance of breaking down pro-

INTRODUCTION 39

tective measures and getting unlimited access by the states or — which is
the same thing essentially — by the stock, timber, oil, and mining inter-
ests of the states. For these reasons Desmond has been fighting the
Forest Service tooth, claw, and rock for fifty years or more. Congressman
Barrett's hearings in 1947 let loose against that poor bureau such vitu-
peration, hatred, venom, vilification, and misstatement that even some
western papers protested. And now behold, the lion has lain down with
the lamb.

For look: an outrageous violation of fixed policy! Here is a proposal
to turn over to a few thousand backpackers, for their exclusive use, 55
million acres of the public domain. Here is a bill that would yield a
princely domain to a noisy minority, a little bunch of selfish eccentrics,
while forever excluding the honest cowboy, miner, and lumberjack.

Further, the proposed National Wilderness Preservation Council
would be one more bureau to break the back of the bureau-ridden West
and bury the eleven public lands states deeper in colonial dependency.
Why should the West be owned more than fifty per cent by the federal
government, and run by absentee landlords? And if we must have
bureaus, then what is the matter with that noble outfit, the Forest Serv-
ice, which has done such a magnificent job up to now? What has it done
that it should have an overriding council created to spy on it? Fie, for
shame.

This is a fascinating speech. I was more fascinated each time I heard
it. It says, in effect, that we oilmen, lumbermen, cowmen, sheepmen, and
chambers of commerce must rally to the defense of the Forest Service
against the base charge that it is no longer capable of protecting its
forests against us.

The multiple-use and crown-colony arguments, related but not en-
tirely compatible, may be answered together. The answer to the first is
that under the Wilderness Bill the wilderness areas would still enjoy
multiple use, if the word "multiple" implies, as I think it does, more
than two. The customary uses of any national forest, in order of their
practical importance, are watershed protection, recreation, conservation,
selective logging, grazing, and mining. To these must be added some
''impractical" uses. A forest, and most especially a wilderness forest, is
a vast research laboratory, a vast schoolroom, a vast nondenominational
church. These functions are a good deal less trivial than the resources of
timber, minerals, and grass that may be locked up. But a succession of
biologists, scholars, and nature lovers who testified to these values of
wilderness brought indulgent smiles to the faces of the rough riders at
the meetings.

To Desmond, multiple use has always meant my use, and it has been
the Forest Service's administration of a true multiple use policy that has

40 Wildlands in Our Civilization

made it so many enemies in the entrepreneurial West. It does not, ap-
parently, signify to Desmond that any wilderness, under the Wilderness
Bill, would still be protecting watersheds, providing healthy recreation to
hikers, campers, climbers, fishermen, and hunters, providing a habitat
for many species of wildlife, offering in its ecological islands invaluable
facilities for research, preserving an incomparable outdoor schoolroom,
and giving a spiritual refuge to people harried and driven by the civi-
lization men have created. No matter: if it doesn't have grazing, lumber-
ing, and mining, it isn't multiple use. It is all recreation, and pretty silly
recreation at that.

And now the cry that the West is the plaything of absentee bureau-
crats. Listen to ex-Senator Watkins of Utah, who until his defeat in the
last election was one of the bitter antagonists of the Wilderness Bill and
probably still is. He is speaking at the Senate Committee hearing of
July 23, 1958.

In the States where much of the pressure for this legislation is coming from,
Federal ownership of land is almost negligible. These States control their lands
and their resources and, sometimes, exhibit little concern for the crown colonies
in the West. Sometimes it seems that our neighbors in the East and South would
like to hamstring economic development in the West, leaving this vast area as
a playground, and an undisturbed national playground . . . Paradoxically, the
West also is where the great bulk of our already reserved wilderness is located.
Many States of the East and South have eliminated their wilderness and lost
public access to their lakes and to their seashore. Now they become concerned
about wilderness preservation, not in their own back yard where the need is
apparent and urgent, but way out West where the buffaloes roam and the deer
and the antelope play. While it may come as a surprise to some of the wilderness-
loving city slickers of the East that we in the West love the wilderness too . . .
Out our way millions of acres are already quite adequately preserved and re-
served in the wilderness state, and probably always will be, because nature has
made it that way . . . May I interpolate here that I have flown over a great
part of the United States, and I have been greatly impressed with the vast amount
of acreage in the East, in the Midwest, and in the South which is not already
occupied for some proper, useful purpose. A lot of areas in the East and in the
South can be put into wilderness reserves . . .

If he had worked at it a month, Mr. Watkins could not have incor-
porated into two paragraphs a more representative list of the hostilities,
misconceptions, and lamentable myopias that befog the wilderness issue.
In the first place he hasn't the slightest conception of what a wilderness
is; it is evidently a place with grass and trees on it, or a place where you
can get down to the seashore, or a 160-acre county park. He thinks the
East and South should get busy and create some and set it aside. He
thinks that millions of acres out his way are "quite adequately" re-
served as wilderness and "probably always will be because nature made
it that way." For the record, apart from national parks and monuments
there is one wilderness area reserved in Utah, the High Uintahs Primi-
tive Area, and it contains 240,717 acres. It is not reserved because nature

INTRODUCTION 41

made it that way, but because a Forest Service order made it that way.
And it is not adequately reserved, because another order — under prompt-
ings from people like Mr. Watkins — could unmake it. One should recall,
too, that a few years ago Mr. Watkins himself was fighting to unmake
the Dinosaur National Monument wilderness.

In his bitterness at what he calls crown-colony status, Mr. Watkins
expresses a characteristic attitude of western business, especially resource
business. He resents federal ownership of the public lands and makes the
usual assumption that they should properly be handed over to the states.
He forgets that they remain federal property because decades of land
laws assisted by monumental graft could not dispose of them; he forgets
that if the states had not renounced title to them upon entering the
Union they would have been stuck with them, and with an absolutely
impossible job of management. For this is the arid West he is speaking
of, and in the arid West the abuse of land has immediate and cata-
strophic consequences, and the characteristic western users of land have
known how to do nothing but abuse it for quick profit.

Mr. Watkins hates it that Utah should be a "playground" for eastern
city slickers. But does he, and does the Salt Lake Chamber of Com-
merce who echoes him, want those city slickers to stay home? Does he
really? It is true that Utah, like any other western state, depends on its
natural resources for its economic stability. But the few resources,
mainly timber and grass, in the High Uintahs Primitive Area would not
tip the balance much either way, except as the area, preserved as wilder-
ness, draws a continuing stream of fishermen, campers, and hunters —
many of them city slickers from out of state who can be soaked with a
high fee for a deer tag. It may well turn out that in the long haul one of
Utah's most productive and profitable resources will prove to be its in-
comparable scenery, much of which, by now, an amiable Uncle Sam has
set aside and is taking care of in the pubHc interest.

I love ex-Senator Watkins' state, but not his state of mind. He speaks
narrowly and parochially and irritably; he suffers from a characteristic
Utah xenophobia; he suspects eastern slickers of manipulating his state's
interests, just as he suspects that villains in California fought the Echo
Park Dam because they want to steal Utah's water. Unhappily, his state
of mind is not uncommon in the Rockies.

Yet if it had not been for federal ownership and control in the arid
West, even more of the West than has already gone would have blown
eastward toward the Missouri. There would be more stripped and dan-
gerous hillsides, there would have been more frequent and more disas-
^ trous floods. Game would be scarcer because its habitat would have been
partly destroyed. The streams would be roily far longer past the opening
of trout season. The West's roads would be worse because the states

42 Wildlands in Our Civilization

would have had to build them themselves. And as for payrolls, those who
say the West depends entirely on resource industries forget how vast, in
the aggregate, is the federal payroll in all the public lands states.

It is not a persuasive argument that Mr. Watkins permits himself. For
the resource industries and the chambers of commerce have consistently
screamed about crown-colony status when times were good, and hollered
for federal rescue when things went bad. Between times they trade the
South peanuts for sugar, flood control for reclamation. In many ways
the mountain states are not unHke the South; they evince a persistent,
acrimonious lust after states' rights, which in the West are inextricable
from natural resources and the public lands. Mountain West and South
are alike too in the possession of a regional guilt and a tendency, under
criticism, to embrace it as a moral crusade. If the South had black
slavery, the West has had its crimes against the land. And the effects of
that criminal and ignorant disregard of consequences would have been
even worse if the states' rights argument had ever fully succeeded.

Using any stick to beat the dog with, the anti- Wilderness Bill people
suggest that everything be tabled until the findings are in from the Na-
tional Outdoor Recreation Resources commission authorized by Pubhc
Law 85-470. The argument goes that because the commission's investi-
gations would involve the forests and their wilderness areas as well as
the city, county, state, national, and private parks, monuments, and
recreational areas, we should wait to see if we need any wilderness at all.
But the wildernesses are already wildernesses ; they are simply not yet a
system, and not yet protected by federal law. The Wilderness Bill would
change the recreational picture not at all. And anyway, this tabling
proposal is another stall, and another attempt to suggest that the sole
purpose of wilderness reserves is recreation.

Which it is not. At present there are only two places in the United
States, outside of Alaska, where you can walk and be more than ten
miles from any road. Even one of those the California Highway Com-
mission seems to want to split in two by a trans-Sierra highway. We have
arrived, moreover, at the point where an exploding population threatens
to overrun the continent and the planet. The population of California,
which passed 15,000,000 a few months ago, will be twice that in two
decades. The thirty or forty thousand people who jam Yosemite Valley's
eight-square-mile floor on a peak summer day may be twice that many
even sooner. The milhons of cars on the roads will be tens of millions.
A nervous man might even fear for the carbon cycle: we may need our
wilderness for making oxygen.

INTRODUCTION 43

Carbon cycle or not, there is no alternative to preserving the wilder-
ness that we still have, and since much of it is in federal ownership there
is no agency but the United States Government that can and will do it.
The nature lovers who testified to the spiritual value of nature unmodi-
fied and unspoiled by man, and who drew smiles from the rough riders
at the hearings, were not talking nonsense. In the long run they were not
being impractical. They were speaking of something absolutely vital to
many of us now, and something that will be three times as necessary to
our grandchildren. Their concern was not a selfish attempt to grab off a
special and exclusive form of recreation, but the abiding concern of
thinking and feeling people to preserve what helps keep men human, to
save our contact with the nature of which we are a part.

The rough riders have never exercised themselves overmuch about the
future, or about any considerations except economic ones. They don't
conceive that they owe the future anything, and neither did their grand-
fathers: hence the half-ruined natural endowment of the West that we
have inherited. What agitates the bird watchers is something that the
rough riders cannot even comprehend; it is the absolute reverse of nar-
row self-interest; it is the hope that by work and by renunciations today
they may give their children and coming generations, in their coming
age of steel and concrete and plastic and crowding and the accumulating
carbon compounds of human and automotive waste, some humble notion
of what it is to be a man, an evolved mammal, part of the natural world.

If the Wilderness Bill loses or is stalled again in committee, the nation
will have lost, the West will have lost, the future will have lost. In spite
of former Senator Watkins' feeling that we ought to help establish a few
wildernesses in other parts of the country and let the West get on with
its lumbering and mining, it has never been man's gift to make wilder-
nesses. But he can make deserts, and has.

Wallace Stegner

This Introduction first appeared in the Sierra Club Bulletin, May 1959, under the
title The War Between the Rough Riders and the Bird Watchers.

HOW MUCH WILDERNESS CAN WE AFFORD TO LOSE? is atl

address delivered by Mr. Zahniser before the Second
Biennial Wilderness Conference, in Berkeley, March 30-
31, 1951, and printed in the sierra club bulletin, April
1951; wilderness — conflict and conscience by Mr.
Brower, and the papers by Mssrs. Talbot, Sumner, and
Leopold are all addresses delivered before the Fifth
Biennial Wilderness Conference, in San Francisco, March
15-16, 1957, and printed in the sierra club bulletin,
June 1957 ; de facto wilderness: what is its place?
by Mr. Brower and the paper by Mr. Kilgore are ad-
dresses delivered before the Fourth Biennial Conference
on Northwest Wilderness, in Seattle, April 14-15, 1962,
and printed in the congressional record, May 17, 1962,
in the remarks of the Honorable John D. Dingell, Con-
gressman from Michigan, wilderness and modern man
by Mr. Collier is reprinted from the author's book, from
every zenith. Chapter XXIV (Denver, Colorado: Sage
Books, 1963).

I

CONFERENCE PAPERS AND
RELATED STATEMENTS

How Much Wilderness Can We Afford To Lose?

HOWARD ZAHNISER

Wilderness — Conflict and Conscience
DAVID R. BROWER

Wilderness Overseas
LEE MERRIMAN TALBOT

Wilderness and Culture
A. STARKER LEOPOLD

Are Beavers Too Busy?
LOWELL SUMNER

De Facto Wilderness: What Is Its Place?

DAVID R. BROWER

Wilderness and the Self-interest of Man
BRUCE M. KILGORE

Wilderness and Modern Man
JOHN COLLIER

HOW MUCH WILDERNESS CAN
WE AFFORD TO LOSE?

^ Howard Zahniser

It is a great privilege for me to attend this second wilderness confer-
ence sponsored by the Sierra Club and to feel again the warmth of a
California welcome.

I am glad that life has brought me in touch with Californians, that I
have been able to be here in your native surroundings occasionally and
also that I have had the privilege of associating in Washington with
Californians who have even endured the East in their devotion to na-
tional interests. I am thinking especially at this time, as are many con-
servationists, of Newton B. Drury, and I should like to express here my
appreciation of his California contribution this past decade to the cause
of wilderness preservation in our national park system. My confidence
in his integrity and devotion has been deep and proven, and it is firmer
now than it has ever been. It is a good example of how an association
with Californians has enriched me and supported me with good examples,
inspiration, and encouragement. I am sorry that Mr. Drury is terminat-
ing his directorship of the National Park Service, but I am glad to be
able to congratulate California on his assumption of leadership in your
state park program — which, indeed, is of great importance to all of us
who are concerned with wilderness.

The Wilderness Society and all the other conservation organizations
that have their headquarters in Washington, D.C. — or in Chicago or
New York — have the deepest respect for the Sierra Club — for its in-
tegrity, its strength, its skill and effectiveness, as for its generosity in
cooperation.

46]

HOW MUCH WHDERNESS . . . ? 47

I know of no organization that is so genuinely regional and so thor-
oughly national. I suppose that is partly because it is the good fortune
of the Sierra Club to have as its regional concern a wilderness treasure
that is truly national, but it is also due, I am sure, to the intelligence
and devotion to the national interest which characterize the leaders and
members of the Sierra Club.

I am happy indeed to be here to profit by these associations, to be
able thus to keep the more vital these relationships that are so strength-
ening to me, and to represent, if I may, the interest and gratitude of
many others who have not been able at this time to journey so far. Our
undertaking to preserve wilderness in the pubhc interest for the sake of
everyone for all time — but at present with the understanding and sup-
port of such a small proportion of our citizens — certainly charges us
with a heavy individual responsibility. We can mutually discharge this
responsibility only if conservationists everywhere are concerned with
wilderness anywhere — anywhere that it still lives.

As I see it, we can no longer afford to lose wilderness. We have al-
ready used up and lost so much that any further loss is a sacrifice, a
sacrifice to be made only under the most extreme compulsion. The tense-
ness of our present situation as civilized, cultured human beings is a re-
sult of the fact that so many of us do not sense that sacrifice.

Two years ago, after I had confronted the first wilderness conference
dinner with a discussion entitled Wilderness: 1969?" and was safely
on the train returning east, I was very much impressed by a report I
came across in a March 28, 1949, issue of Life, of an "Intercollegiate
Bull Session" on the future of the human race. I was especially inter-
ested in the dictum of one described as a "young man from Cal Tech."
He said:

"Riding home on the bus after school gives me an odd feeling — here
are all these people, . . . and they don't realize what is happening . . .
What's actually going to happen is that everything is going to be dif-
ferent. . . . There's going to be a bigger difference between human cus-
toms in 1969 and today than there is between today's customs and those
of 1949 B.C. . . . When I'm at school and things seem pretty routine
I forget what we're doing and where we're going — and then I'll think of
gene studies that probably will change the human race in the next few
generations, or of the electronics boys at M.I.T. and their servomotor
robots, or of the computer men at Guggenheim Lab who already live in a
world of 10-miles-per-second speeds and man-made satellites, or the
biochemists at Chicago to whom life is a series of electronic and molec-
ular relationships . . . and all the rest of us — patient, relentless, and
ruthless. Then I ride with these people on the Pasadena bus and think.

48 Wildlands in Our Civilization

'Don't you realize what we're doing to you and your world? You ought
to be excited and frightened and be preparing for it' — and then I realize
that they're doing just the right thing, taking it day by day."

Such was the vision of 1969 of the young man from Cal Tech. He
apparently did not think at all of the Sierra wilderness that we had been
planning for 1969. "Everything is going to be different," he said.

The Need for Reassurance

As I read that two years ago, I wondered, and I still wonder. I wished
I could know the young man from Cal Tech, and all the young men
whose so stimulating opinions made that "Intercollegiate Bull Session"
such an interesting magazine feature, and the people in the buses too.
I wished I could offer an assurance that all is not going to be different,
that the community of life on the earth which interdependently ex-
presses in so many ways the solar energy of our universe is going to per-
sist and evolve on and on into an eternity of the future. I wish I could
suggest that what the un-named young man from Cal Tech and the peo-
ple on the bus needed was an awareness of this kinship of all life that
could indeed be theirs with a journey to the wildness so near them. I dare
say that there may have been those on that Pasadena bus who did know
the wilderness and could themselves have reassured the young man.

We do need this reassurance. We do need to guard ourselves against a
false sense of our own sufficiency. We need to draw ourselves constantly
toward the center of things and not allow our eccentricity to carry us
off on a tangent, off toward an increasing unhappiness.

We are a part of the wildness of the universe. That is our nature. Our
noblest, happiest character develops with the influence of wildness.
Away from it we degenerate into the squalor of the slums or the frus-
tration of clinical couches. With the wilderness we are at home.

Some of us think we see this so clearly that for ourselves, for our
children, our continuing posterity, and our fellow men we covet with a
consuming intensity the fullness of the human development that keeps
its contact with wildness. Out of the wilderness, we realize, has come the
substance of our culture, and with a living wilderness — it is our faith —
we shall have also a vibrant culture, an enduring civilization of health-
ful citizens who renew themselves when they are in contact with the
earth.

This Is What We Lose

This is not a disparagement of our civilization — no disparagement at
all — but rather an admiration of it to the point of perpetuating it. We
like the beef from the cattle grazed on the public domain. We relish the

HOW MUCH WILDERNESS . . . ? 49

vegetables from the lands irrigated by virtue of the Bureau of Reclama-
tion— our Bureau of Reclamation, too, we should recall now and then.
We carry in our packs aluminum manufactured with the help of hydro-
electric power from great reservoirs. We motor happily on paved high-
ways to the approaches of our wilderness. We journey in streamliner
trains and in transcontinental airplanes to conferences on wilderness
preservation. We know the exultation of the music and the spoken
words (some of them anyhow) marvelously brought to us by radio. We
nourish and refresh our minds from books manufactured out of the pulp
of our forests. We enjoy the convenience and comfort of our way of
living — urban, village, and rural. And we want this civilization to endure
and to be enjoyed on and on by healthful happy citizens.

It is this civilization, this culture, this way of living that will be
sacrificed if our wilderness is lost. What sacrifice!

Our only hope to avert this loss is in our deliberate effort to preserve
the wilderness we have. The ramifications of our developing enterprises
are such that only those areas which are set aside for preservation will
persist as wilderness.

It behooves us then to do two things: First we must see that an ade-
quate system of wilderness areas is designated for preservation, and then
we must allow nothing to alter the wilderness character of the preserves.

We have made an excellent start on such a program. Our obligation
now — to those who have been our pioneers and to those of the future,
as well as to our own generation — is to see that this program is not un-
done but perfected.

In our marvelous national park system; in the wilderness, wild, primi-
tive, and roadless areas of our national forests; on extensive tracts of
Indian reservations; in certain units of the national wildlife refuge sys-
tem; and in state parks and some others too, we have areas that have
either been set aside as wilderness or that are being protected in a way
that safeguards wilderness.

The process of designation of areas of wilderness for preservation,
however, is not complete as yet. There are still some to be added — espe-
cially grassland, seashore, and desert. There is no doubt, so far as I
know, about the correctness of the designation of any of the areas now
being preserved. There are, I understand, some boundary adjustments
that need to be made for certain areas that were established without op-
portunity for adequate care as to exact boundaries. There are zoning
questions in some of our parks. There are some additions that can be
made to establish areas. There are private holdings within these public
areas that should be acquired.

These aspects of the perfection of the designations should be cared

50 Wildlands in Our Civilization

for in a persisting program. And the other potential units in this system
of wilderness should be sought out as soon as possible.

A most determined effort should be made to provide for the security
of these areas as wilderness. At present there are so many test cases on
our hands — test cases of the public interest with reference to wilderness
preservation when in conflict with other enterprises — that conserva-
tionists have not had the time or energy to pursue the all-important
positive program that alone can prevent the constant recurrence of these
controversies.

Hence it is of great importance to treat such a campaign as that now
current for the defense of Dinosaur National Monument as a positive
drive to attain this better security. The proponents and supporters of
the Echo Park and Split Mountain dams in this monument have been
impressed, I am sure, by the indignation and protests aroused as the
public has become aware of the issues. Wilderness preservationists
should not, therefore, relent before the full objective is realized, should
not stop short in this effort to obtain not only the elimination of
these two dams but also the firmer protection of all the wilderness we
are preserving.

As soon as we have a clear consensus of conservationists we should
most certainly press steadily for the maximum security possible; that is,
congressional establishment of a national wilderness system backed by
an informed public opinion:

1 . A bill to establish a national wilderness preservation system should
be drawn up as soon as possible with the joint cooperation of the federal
land-administering agencies and conservation organizations.

2. It should affirm the national policy to preserve such a wilderness
system.

3. It should define the proper uses of areas within the system and
should provide for the protection of areas from inconsistent uses.

4. Areas to be included in the system should be specified in the bill,
and provision for additions to the list of areas by executive order or
formal designation by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of
the Interior should be included, with the further provision that the re-
moval of any area from the system can be effected only by Congress.

5. The bill should make clear that no changes in jurisdiction would
be involved and that no new land-administering agency would be estab-
lished. The agency administering an area designated as a unit in the
national wilderness preservation system would simply be charged with
the responsibility of preserving its wilderness character. National forest
areas would continue as at present but with the guarantee of perpetuity
that Congress can give. National park and monument areas would con-
tinue under the administration of the National Park Service. Such na-

HOW MUCH WILDERNESS . . . ? 51

tional wildlife refuges as would be included would be preserved without
developments and installations altering their wilderness character.

6. In other words, each area in the system would continue to serve the
peculiar purpose that it has, or would have, in the program of its par-
ticular administering agency, but every agency would be charged with
the responsibihty of preserving the wilderness character of any area of
the national wilderness preservation system in its custody.

7. A commission or board should be set up to conduct a survey in
cooperation with land-administering agencies, to recommend to Con-
gress any necessary adjustments in this program, and to prepare — or
coordinate the preparation of — maps and other materials for the in-
formation of the public with reference to this wilderness system.

8. If there is not soon a consensus of conservationists with regard to
such a program, there should be set up as soon as feasible a national
wilderness resources policy commission to formulate a positive program.

We should keep moving in a positive direction!

Let us try to be done with a wilderness preservation program made
up of a sequence of overlapping emergencies, threats, and defense cam-
paigns! Let's make a concerted effort for a positive program that will
establish an enduring system of areas where we can be at peace and not
forever feel that the wilderness is a battleground!

A week ago tonight, in Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C., I saw
in color motion pictures some of the still-living wilderness of Africa —
with its lions, and elephants, giraffes, impala, and thousands of zebra.
As it happens, I do not ever hope to go to Africa, but I certainly have
been enriched by its wilderness. So can it always be in our culture, if we
will it so.

Even as the scenes of a once-in-a-lifetime experience, even as the
objective reahty that gives life to motion pictures, photographs, writings,
and other works of art, the areas of true wilderness will serve their con-
tinuing purpose of maintaining our relationships to the primeval, the
elemental, the real — whether this relationship at any given time be
recreational, scientific, historical, environmental, or devotional.

That night fin Constitution Hall] I had with me my five-year-old Ed-
ward. His multiplicity of questions about all that exciting wildness in
Africa kept me as fully occupied on our way home as the perplexity of
this question has tonight. Finally (we were driving home, just the two
of us), wearied, he lay down in the car seat beside me. In a moment he
sighed and said, "Daddy, was I born to know very much?" And I said,
"Yes, I think you were, born to know very much."

And so were we all, I think, and to me it seems that the wilderness is
certainly an essential part of this inheritance of knowledge that is right-
fully ours.

WILDERNESS — CONFLICT
AND CONSCIENCE

David R. Brower

You like wilderness, let's suppose, and you want to see some of it
saved. Not just a thin strip of roadside with a sign saying "Don't pick
the flowers." Not just a wild garden behind the hotel or a pleasant woods
within shouting distance of the highway. But real wilderness, big wilder-
ness— country big enough to have a beyond to it and an inside. With
space enough to separate you from the buzz, bang, screech, ring, yam-
mer, and roar of the 24-hour commercial you wish hard your life
wouldn't be. Wilderness that is a beautiful piece of world. Where as you
start up a trail and your nine-year-old Bob asks, "Is there civilization
behind that ridge?" you can say no and share his "That's good! " feeling.

Yes, a place where you can rescue your selj from what Ortega calls
the other — all the extraneities that pile on you too deep. So deep, to
quote my wife Anne's bon mot, that "the Hfe you lead is not your own."

So you want a place where you can be serene, that will let you con-
template and connect two consecutive thoughts, or that if need be can
stir you up as you were made to be stirred up, until you blend with the
wind and water and earth you almost forgot you came from.

You Hke wilderness, then, and need it. And suddenly you encounter a
practical man who never learned that he needs it too, or doesn't remem-
ber. It doesn't take you long to encounter him, because there are a lot
of him, many of him in places of influence, all adding up to a pohtical
force that can jeopardize wilderness if it chooses to, and choose it seems
to.

You can malign him, and insure that the conflict will continue over
the need for wilderness. But let's assume you'd rather align him, get
52]

CONFLICT AND CONSCIENCE 53

straight to his conscience, end the conflict, and save the wilderness. Then
what?

I have tried to develop one approach. Let's call it a starting point,
and let us hope that it will suggest to you a different and better approach
to a goal that happily still remains and should persist.

Let's address ourselves to a very important question. How much right
does one generation have to another generation's freedom? Can we of
this generation, in conscience, pay for our freedom by mortgaging the
freedom of our children? Is it our ethic that we are privileged to write
the rules to which all the subsequent generations of our civilization must
be committed, and by which they must abide, irrespective of their own
wishes?

Thomas Jefferson, long ago, said that one generation could not bind
another; each had the right to set its own course. Go out across this land
and try to find someone to argue that he was wrong. You won't find a
taker. It is the national consensus that we don't have this right.

But deeds are not matching words. This generation is speedily using
up, beyond recall, a very important right that belongs to future genera-
tions— the right to have wilderness in their civilization, even as we have
it in ours; the right to find solitude somewhere; the right to see, and
enjoy, and be inspired and renewed, somewhere, by those places where
the hand of God has not been obscured by the industry of man.

Our decisions today will determine the fate of that right, so far as
people of our time can pass opportunity along to our sons. Apathy here
can mean that we pass them a dead torch. Or we can keep it aflame,
knowing that this is a very special torch that man cannot light again.

Belatedly we are becoming generally concerned about our scenic re-
sources and about resolving conflicts that must be resolved if we are to
retain islands of open space in the sea of tomorrow's civilization. The
early history of civilization dealt with the problem of finding enough
enclosed spaces — caves in the beginning, then crude shelters, then walled
cities, followed by the early beginnings of suburbia when there was no
longer room enough within the walls for all the people of the cities. Only
recently have we begun to change our concern. The problem seems no
longer to be one of enclosing space, but of leaving enough of it open to
meet our needs for greenery and for every man's "slice of sky" Wallace
Stegner speaks of. We know we need some of this in our own garden for
the edges of our daily existence — something to look out upon at break-
fast, or before dinner. We need more space near by for our weekends,
where on a March day a boy may fly a kite, or a family may picnic and
stroll. For our holidays we need accessible open space within range of

54 Wildlands in Our Civilization

our faster transportation and better roads, bearing in mind that we shall
soon have more three-day weekends than we have now. For our length-
ening vacations we'll need the big spaces of national parks and wilder-
ness.

These outdoor spaces — daylight-saving plots, weekend and holiday
areas, and vacation regions — won't set themselves aside. We have to
plan for them as the population avalanche flows over the land, and plan
generously if civilization is not only to improve Hving standards, but
also to sustain man's standards for life.

The Sierra Club has been concerned with man's use of wildlife, wilder-
ness, and national parks ever since John Muir founded the club in 1892
with the general purpose of exploring, enjoying, and protecting our
scenic resources. In none of its 65 years has the club been free of the
controversy that results when one seeks to protect what another would
exploit. That has meant 65 years' experience in trying to resolve a cre-
scendo of conflicts — experience that we can draw upon as we consider
today's major controversies and the still more critical contests that
tomorrow will inevitably bring.

These conflicts will underline the need for conservation education;
more than that, they will require the education of conservationists.
There's quite a difference.

On the one hand, conservation alludes to management of the commod-
ity resources, to using them wisely that they may last longer. We all
approve of conservation, even as we approve of motherhood — even while
we go on expending our nonrenewable resources at a constantly accel-
erating rate (more in this century than in all previous history). We in-
tend to do better. In the end, however, we know that no matter how well
we manage our commodity resources and our raw materials, time will
catch up with us. Conservation means spreading a given resource over a
given period of time. Time finally runs out and the resource is gone, or
at best, is a rarity.

On the other hand, the conservationist, and I stress the -ist, has come
to be known as the man who is concerned with preserving for all our
time certain important scenic resources — our resources of wilderness,
parks, wildlife, and the recreation and inspiration man may always
derive from them. Always, that is, if each generation, including ours,
takes care of the few places we have left where those resources still sur-
vive.

To use a figure, there are two sides to conservation just as there are
two sides to a coin. On one side, tangible quantities; on the other, in-
tangible qualities. Each side is presently oriented to look in opposite
directions. Yet each must live with the other. We may need a coin of
transparent material, so that each side can look in both directions.

CONFLICT AND CONSCIENCE 55

The conservationist, then, is the man more concerned about what cer-
tain natural resources do for his soul than for his bank balance. Every
man is a conservationist part of the time in his thinking, if not in his
action.

There are a great number of people who are conservationists in their
action also — more than 11,000 [now 25,000] in the Sierra Club, and
about two million who are loosely organized in the Natural Resources
Council of America. The numbers are growing more rapidly than is our
population. Every time a scenic hill is bulldozed for a new tract of
houses, or a new freeway blots out more acres of green quietude, or a
new dam inundates a trout stream, or there's a vacant space where a
great tree was, or another whooping crane turns up missing — every time
one of these things happens, the conservationist force grows stronger as
more people realize the need to protect a rarity from extinction. Theirs
is not a force of bhnd opposition to progress, but of opposition to blind
progress. Theirs is a force determined to see that progress does not take
away important things from mankind, forever, in order to benefit a few
men now.

The conservationist force, I submit, is not a pressure group. It merely
demonstrates the pressure of man's conscience, of his innate knowledge
that there are certain things he may not ethically do to the only world he
will ever have, and to the strictly rationed resource of natural beauty
which still exists in that world. The conservationist force does not need
to be pressed into action. It needs only be made to realize what is hap-
pening, and its voice of conscience speaks.

That sounds simple. It isn't. I need not go into any detail to convince
you of the difficulty of making people realize something — of their mak-
ing it real to themselves, not imaginary, but actual. You know how hard
it is to be heard in the clamor around us. And we all know how hard it
is to get the voice of conscience to speak audibly enough to have effect.
For example, how many times a week do you feel something needs to be
done for the public good — and how many of those times can you find
the few minutes to do something about it yourself?

So the conservationist force, for all its conscience, still needs to realize
more, and to speak more. Conservation controversies, like prefabricated
telephone booths, are ubiquitous. All of them are conflicts for space. The
resolution of these conflicts should depend upon the answer to the ques-
tion— Who needs the space most? Unfortunately, many of the decisions
are being made now, and irrevocably, not on the basis of who needs the
space most, but on who got there first with the most dramatic plan of
development and the biggest earth-moving equipment.

It would be helpful, in resolving the coming conflicts for space, "to
have on hand a battalion of men with the wisdom of Solomon." Not hav-

56 Wildlands in Our Civilization

ing even one Solomon, let us nevertheless see what we can do to: con-
sider a few of the conflict types in some detail ; list the tools we have for
resolving conflicts; try to arrive at the criteria for decision; and suggest
some courses of immediate action. This is a big order. If in the course of
this I make noises like an oracle, please forgive me. To be brief, I'll stick
to direct sentences. In your own mind please add "it seems to me" to
each sentence.

What Are Some of the Conflicts?

Man Against Numbers. — Man has demonstrated, as clearly as he
has demonstrated anything, that he is prohfic enough to explode across
the land — not with the rapidity of an epidemic, of course, but more thor-
oughly and with far more lasting devastation of the natural resources of
the only world he has yet contrived to live upon. We can label this state-
ment "neo-Malthusianism," but the labeHng solves no resource problem.
The members of what we could label the "Science-Will-Save-Us-Society,"
will have quite a burden to prove that science really can save us. Science
can do wonderful things, but our scientists can only begin to gather data
on the new problems civilization presents every year, and in turn can
only begin to pubhsh and interpret their data.

A serious problem confronting scientists, and one upon which no con-
servation organization I know of has adopted a policy, is the population
problem — an especially touchy cat to put a bell on.

Natural scientists know full well what happens when there is an explo-
sion of population in deer; the deer themselves lose vitality and starve
by the thousands because they have overloaded their range. Mankind
has a range, too, and it has a maximum carrying capacity consistent with
a good life — a life with enough resources on hand for all to spare us the
final quarrel over them. We may argue about how many people the range
can withstand, but we can hardly argue that there is no limit. We have
strong intimations, as we watch the sea of smog rise around us, that the
limit is approaching faster than we thought, and from a different quarter.
It may well be shortage of clean air, not of water, that brings us to a
sudden halt in Cahfornia.

Whatever the limiting factor, and though our engineers cover the
earth with a mezzanine floor, we know that we shall come to a day when
we can no longer double our population, or even add to it, without last-
ing regret. We could continue to worship Growth until midnight of that
last day.

But there is a brighter possibility and it is worth working hard for.
When the Hght turns red, you stop before you hit the car ahead. If you
don't, you're in trouble. The margin between us and trouble is our scenic
open space and our wilderness. We vaguely sense the shape of this need;

CONFLICT AND CONSCIENCE 57

later and wiser men will know it surely, in the crowded world we are let-
ting their heritage become. For them, we could choose to skimp a little
on gadgets, even our most elaborate gadgets, even as they shall one day
be forced to skimp, and with so much less wild world to repair to.

The brighter possibiHty, then, is to look for substitutes before we have
completely used up a given resource. Perhaps we, as present stewards
for the natural resources of all generations, could revive the practice of
tithing — saving ten per cent for the future. Not ten per cent of what this
generation received from the last, but a tithe of what was here, in our
best estimate, when white men began to spread over this continent. If
that sounds overgenerous, remember how few the generations who have
used up to ninety per cent, and how many generations will need what's
left, to leaven their otherwise ersatz world.

Water Development. — Where water development and wilderness
preservation are in conflict, we can remember that gravity will take
water through parks and wilderness and out to places where man wants
to use it or store it. Optimum development downstream can preclude
irrevocable damage to wilderness values upstream. Quite often it will
cost less; but even if it were to cost more in dollars, it would save what
dollars cannot put together again.

The conflict with hydroelectric development is more direct, for man
wants to get energy from the water that gravity brings down. Alternate
sources of energy are coming fast, however, and we can afford to wait for
their perfection rather than sacrifice scenically important streams and
valleys. We need to remember that our choice to preserve is a temporary
determination at best. Our choice to sacrifice, however, requires all future
men to live by our choice. We will have written the rules for them, and
indeHbly.

Wood Products. — The Timber Resources Review recently com-
pleted by the Forest Service has demonstrated that our principal oppor-
tunity to meet the future's need for timber lies elsewhere than in the
virgin forests of our best wilderness and park lands. The National Lum-
bermen's Association has gone even further. Its recent releases have
stressed the need for expanding the timber market and have stated that
we are growing one-third more timber than we are harvesting; they
therefore opposed the timber-reserve part of the Soil Bank. Plywood
people want much less plywood imported. Moreover, in the immediate
future we can see a minor revolution in the wood-products industry in
the promise of the chipper, particle board, and alternate sources of cellu-
lose that will have to substitute for virgin-forest timber sooner or later.

In the absence of a policy which provides specific criteria for deter-
mining how much wilderness we shall need to preserve, and in the pres-
ence of abundant promise of substitutes for wilderness timber, and con-

58 Wildlands in Our Civilization

sidering also the many values for mankind the wilderness forest affords
— multiple use of the highest, most diverse order — we should not be
hard put to decide the course to vote for in the timber-versus-wilderness
conflict.

Highways. — These had better go around our scenic gems, not through
them, unless we want the face of our land crisscrossed by high-speed
routes to beautiful places that might have been. We have the potential
of drowning ourselves with automobiles, of so overloading our hardened
arterials that first the pleasure of driving will disappear — and then the
motion!

Our children shall need parklike places where they can have a change
of pace and mood — ^where they can spend a good chunk of time and be-
come part of the scene for a while. It will not be enough for them to
screech to a stop because of a traffic light or traffic jam, then roll down
the window for a quick sniff of the great outdoors before the man behind
blows his horn. Many people fear that our engineers are more skillful at
moving vehicles than at moving people, and that a lot of space is being
too freely used up in the process.

We are enamoured of horsepower, of highways and freeways, of cover-
ing more ground more quickly and with greater safety. In our ardor,
however, we may well consider that it is very hard to undo a freeway
and impossible to redo a wilderness.

Other Conflicts. — There are other conflicting demands for our pres-
ent scenic open spaces, conflicts brought on by our needs for flood con-
trol, industry, mining, food and forage and fiber, by urbanization, and
by recreation too. There is no need to go into detail about them now.
They all come from real needs for things we want and believe in. But
with reasonable restraint we can eat cake and have some too — have con-
veniences and wilderness, so long as we remember that there are some
areas where convenience costs too much.

What Tools for Resolving Conflicts?

What tools have we already fashioned, or what can we invent, to re-
solve these conflicts?

Facts. — First, we need facts about resources. Many organizations
are assembling them, and more help is needed. For scenic resources, the
organizations prepared to do the best job nationally are the National
Park Service, which has a program based upon a 1936 law and Mission
66; the Forest Service, which has now come up with its Operation Out-
doors; and the Fish and Wildlife Service, now developing its own Opera-
tion Waterfowl. California is off to a good, if late start with its imminent
recreation plan now before the Legislature. Many other agencies are in-

CONFLICT AND CONSCIENCE 59

volved, and coordination is essential. The proposed national Outdoor
Recreation Resource Review will help get this started.

Interpretation. — But facts are not enough. One of our unheralded
national surpluses is the surplus of undigested data which, if laid end to
end, would reach too far. A fact has meaning only when it gets from
producer to market, only when it is published and interpreted well. We
are badly in need of equitable interpretation of the facts we are gather-
ing about our natural resources.

Most important, as pointed out in Scenic Resources for the Future *,
"We must to the best of our ability project all future needs on the same
screen with the same projection distance and same focal length of lens
for each scene, and also, to the best of our ability, with the same illumi-
nation. Let the Hght be a cool one."

So far we have had quite a disparity in distances, lenses, and Hght. In
California, for example, we know that water development is going to
make heavy demands upon what land we have for other purposes. To
project that scene, we have elaborate equipment that has been derived
from an eight-year effort at a cost of better than $1 million per year. But
water isn't all we'll be needing in the year 2,000, it is only one of many
things.

What kind of equipment do we have, whether in Cahfornia or in the
country as a whole, to project our other needs? By comparison, we can
project our needs for scenic resources with little more than a 19th cen-
tury magic lantern, lit by a lone flame. Unless we can demonstrate the
need for equity, we stand a good chance, so far as this particular conflict
goes in California, of having the best-watered, most populous, crowded,
biggest grossing. State in the Union — and the least beautiful one. Our
white-water streams will be so fully harnessed for use that you can't see
running water : each pleasant little valley in the hills and mountains will
be replaced by a fluctuating reservoir, its water-shed cropped and gravely
impaired; and suburbia will spread almost everywhere else. Bear in mind
that our State Director of Water Resources, in opposing the current wil-
derness bill, listed in his reasons for doing so that the bill would hamper
California Water Plan hopes for dams or water structures in Lava Beds
and Joshua Tree National Monuments and Yosemite National Park, as
well as the Plan's hopes to use the Marble Mountains Wilderness as a
dumping place for spoil. We don't need water that badly. And no bill
would stop these things if the people should ever really need them.

Public Information. — The public needs information, too. All our
facts and interpretation will mean little if the public isn't taken into con-
fidence. After all, the public must consent to whatever proposal we come
up with. "The engineering of consent" is the concise definition of pubHc

* Sierra Club Bulletin, December 1956.

60 Wildlands in Our Civilization

relations. Meetings such as the Wilderness Conferences are a starting
point. What we do after we leave the meetings will determine how far
the cause moves.

Legislation. — An informed public will want a clear statement of
policy, which is a statement in law, and will want continuing legislative
interest in what happens under the policy. Congress, for example, is the
nation's board of directors. It should reserve the power to review irrevers-
ible staff decisions which lead to the extinction of a given resource. Right
now the federal staff can extinguish wilderness with a pen stroke — and
the pen is striking.

Administration. — The executive branch, armed with administrative
regulations based upon law, will supply the preponderance of protection,
for only this branch of government has staff enough to do the job full-
time. Loosely worded regulations, which were adequate for a loosely
populated land largely free of conflict, will have to become specific —
and must in turn be based upon more specific law if we are to avoid a
dangerous overconcentration of discretion. For instance, there will need
to be a clearer understanding of the full meaning of multiple use, and of
the limitations of multiple use. This has never meant a great number of
cooks working over the same pot of broth although many people think
so.

Education. — The legislative and executive branches, with help from
lay organizations, will then need to continue the effort of public educa-
tion— the engineering of support. The need for this is stressed whenever
any two people discuss the subject of conservation, and sometimes even
when the discussion is only a monologue. We have a long way to go, or
to say it another way, we have a great opportunity.

These are the tools. They are all necessary. Those named last will be
of little use if we don't have equitably interpreted facts to start with.

What Criteria for Decision?

Let us go back briefly to that matter of correctly interpreting facts,
for it is from this interpretation that we shall have to derive our criteria
for decision.

We must make one decision before we shall know how to sort out our
facts. Shall we on the one hand resurrect the rejected philosophy of
apres moi le deluge, or on the other hand shall we seek the exact opposite
for those who follow us — for them a world as beautiful as ours? I don't
think this will be a hard decision to make but we shall need to keep re-
minding ourselves that we made it.

Since wilderness is our primary concern here, let us list the points we
need to consider in weighing wilderness preservation against a potential
conflicting use. This weighing will set a pattern for the scenic resources

CONFLICT AND CONSCIENCE 61

which are less fragile than wilderness. And wilderness conflicts are hard-
est to solve and most critical.

1. The wilderness we have now is all that we, and all men, will ever
have.

2. Much of our wild land which is presently used for its wilderness
will be lost to wilderness use. It has not been dedicated, and remains
only by accident or oversight, or because of the slight value of its raw
materials. When it goes, its human load must be added to that placed
upon dedicated wilderness, wherever it is left.

3. We don't know what the carrying capacity in terms of people is or
may be, either for accidental or dedicated wilderness — carrying capacity
that should be expressed in two ways: (a) What human use will a place
withstand and still recover naturally, and (b) how many people will it
withstand at a given time without their eliminating its aesthetic value at
the time?

With respect to recoverability: We must not be fooled by vastness of
a total area. The key terrain, or the heartland, or the living space, or the
camping base — whatever you may call it — is that rare, scarce oasis that
has real scenic appeal, that has water and shade, wood and forage, that is
gentle enough in slope to camp on, and that possesses a wild setting
(without which one might as well camp in Central Park). There is pre-
cious little key terrain, even in the vastest reserves. And what key terrain
there is is likely also to be a good reservoir site.

With respect to aesthetic capacity: Wilderness cannot be false-front
wilderness and fulfill what man needs in it — no green-belt fringe obscur-
ing a periodic sea of stumps. There must be assurance that a man's wild
slice of sky won't have too many elbows in it, or administrative conven-
iences either. There must be room enough for time — where the sun can
calibrate the day, not the wristwatch, for days or weeks of unordered
time, time enough to forget the feel of the pavement and to get the feel
of the earth, and of what is natural, and right.

4. Whatever the carrying capacity turns out to be, we can predict that
it will be limited — so limited that wilderness can probably never again
be abundant enough for everyman to walk in it. But after all, only the
small child must handle a thing to know it; adults need only look. Those
in between need a little of both. So some people will be able to walk in
wilderness and most of them will be the better for it. Some may wish to
but never make it. Some may not think they care to at all, nor expect
their sons to care. But wilderness must be there, or the world's a cage.

5. It follows that our expanding population will need more wilderness
than exists, and far more than has yet been set aside for preservation.

6. Therefore, we can conclude that any step to discard our vestige of
dedicated American wilderness, or to prejudice its protection, is prema-

62 Wildlands in Our Civilization

ture at this time. And knowing this, we are obhgated to insure its pro-
tection the best way we know how — by law, regulation, and understand-
ing.

To those who for materialistic convenience want to. extinguish just
part of that dedicated wilderness we can site Solomon's precedent. We
all remember his most famous decision, when one mother wanted the
child divided, and the other wanted the child spared, even if she herself
were not to have it. Let the judgment favor those who want the wilder-
ness to remain whole. A decision adverse to that whole can never be
rescinded.

Suggestions for Immediate Action

It will take time to seek out facts and reach decisions in the long-range
public interest — three years at the very least. In the interim an immedi-
ate holding action is needed, and I have a brief suggestion. Let federal
and state executives appoint task forces who can set about promptly to
put up three kinds of signs in places where it is the consensus of conser-
vationists that they belong:

"Sample, DonH SeW should be posted for each of our crown jewels —
our parks, dedicated wilderness, or their equivalent in scenic caliber.

"Closed During Inventory" ought to be posted on certain areas in
controversy in which the scenic, recreational, and scientific values are
probably high, lest we find that the forthcoming inventory of our scenic
resources consists of checking off our choicest treasures as they are car-
ried out the door.

"Business As Usual" signs can be posted everywhere else.

In any event, some kind of moratorium is essential. A three-year wait
on some of our development projects is not long compared to the eternity
our descendants shall otherwise have to live by any mistakes we make
out of premature commitment. For example, consider the tragically pre-
mature decision at Hetch Hetchy, in Yosemite National Park, a contro-
versy that is all v»^ater behind the dam — the dam in Hetch Hetchy Valley
from which San Francisco gets the same water it could have diverted out-
side the park.*

(Scenes from Yosemite Valley)

This is the story of two yosemites. One is the Yosemite Valley every-
body knows. It is one of the most beautiful valleys in the world. Hand-

* At this point in his address Mr. Brower displayed a film produced by him for
the Sierra Club in 1955, entitled Two Yosemites, the narration for which we
include here.

CONFLICT AND CONSCIENCE 63

some cliffs and waterfalls in a charming setting. Trees to frame the
vistas, meadows to look at and to look from, natural beauty under foot
and to walk by — a setting with open space, living space, that a million
people see and enjoy every year.

(Falls, reservoir, and dam, Hetch Hetchy Valley)

The other Yosemite was only a little less beautiful than this one and
a few miles to the north — Hetch Hetchy Valley. Wapama Falls was one
of Hetch Hetchy's finest but now the setting has gone.

(Moccasin Creek; Hetchy Hatchy again)

You see, Hetch Hetchy was a remarkable storage vessel, with a fine
damsite where the walls crowded together. It was dammed to enable
Moccasin Creek powerhouse, in the Sierra foothills, to generate some
kilowatts for San Francisco — at the cost of the nation's scenery. They
said the dam would be "easily covered by grasses and vines."

John Muir, the Sierra Club, and other conservation groups fought
hard against this destructive park invasion. San Francisco argued that
without this water it would wither ; it must have this cheap power ; there
were no good alternatives ; and the dam would enhance the beauty of the
place and make it more accessible. "The greatest good for the greatest
number." Teeming San Francisco against the few people who had yet
visited Yosemite.

(Details, drawdown area near dam)

Not one of the city's claims has proved valid, but 40 years ago San
Francisco won. This once-beautiful valley, part of a national park, was
flooded.

We took these pictures May 13, 1955. The reservoir was down 180
feet, but 60 feet higher than it had been May 1 . In June it would prob-
ably fill, then start right back down again, for it is a fluctuating reser-
voir as most power and storage reservoirs must be. Its zone of ups and
downs, between high water and low, is a region of desolation. Nothing
permanent can grow in it.

(Many scenes from the area at the head of the reservoir exposed by drawdown)

This zone is ugly enough at the dam. At the head of the reservoir it is
worse. There this much drawdown means two miles of desolation.

We walked a mile up into it. Although it was still early in the season,
1600 people came into Yosemite Valley that same day. Two came to
Hetch Hetchy — and we didn't come for pleasure. Who would?

What you see here is what you see at most fluctuating reservoirs and
what no one should see in a park. Stumps where the basin was cleared.

64 Wildlands in Our Civilization

stumps and more stumps, exposed and reexposed until silt finally buries
them. The stream — it was one of the most beautiful in the Sierra — is
silted in. Tuolumne Falls is covered. The banks are silted. The flat liv-
ing space is silted, and as soon as the surface is dry enough, it is on the
move — a dust bowl, from the silt that sloughed off the canyonsides when
the reservoir was full. The river brings still more each year, and wind-
blown scum collects in the eddies of what was a sparkling river. A dead
butterfly joins the dead scene. The rising flood will soon bury a lonely
flower, and ebb to exhume each year the wedges a woodcutter left forty
years ago. Forty years . . .

(Rusty wedges on stump; silt blowing by stumps and mountain vistas)

Forty years! . . . They had circulated touched-up pictures oj an
artist's conception oj a pretty lake, always brim-full. San Francisco's
mayor wrote, "The scene will be enhanced by the effect oj the lake, re-
flecting all above it and about it, in itself a great and attractive natural
object." Secretary of the Interior James Gar field testified: "In weighing
the two sides oj the question, I thought that it should be resolved in
javor oj San Francisco, because this use oj the valley would not destroy
it as one oj the most beautijul spots in the West. It would simply change
the floor oj the valley jrom a meadow to a beautijul lake."

Congressman Englebright added: "As ... a lake, it will be one oj
great beauty; there will be fine fishing in it, and boating, and so on,
which would make the lake an improvement to the park." . . .

There were alternate sites, other sources of water and power too, the
real motive, so that the day of atomic power could have arrived with
Hetch Hetchy still beautiful. But the Secretary of the Interior accepted
the city's claim. He had made a "careful, competent study" and no other
way would do. . . .

The alternatives, which would have harmed no precious scenery, re-
main unused. And for the million people who come to Yosemite Valley
each year to enjoy it, perhaps a thousand approach Hetch Hetchy — to
turn away from its tragic drabness. Why should they stay? To pack in
and camp here? To let the children play in the meadows? To fish in this
stream? To breathe the clean mountain air? Could this ever have been
beautiful?

{Details just above high water mark, near dam)

Above the waterline is a clue to what beauty could have remained.
Colorful lichens, miniature gardens of mosses and ferns — these bring life
to the rocks and rills. Near the promontory where a summer home was

Once Is Too Often: A Picture Story

This Was Hetch Hetchy

I N THE early part of the century the late J.N. LeConte, explorer and
hydraulic engineer, made a remarkable series of photographs of Hetch
Hetchy Valley, in Yosemite National Park, before water and power seek-
ers of San Francisco sought to improve it.

Hetch Hetchy was not quite so beautiful as its neighbor, Yosemite
Valley, but it had much of Yosemite's charm and living space — great oaks,
verdant meadows, tree-framed waterfalls, and one of the finest streams
in all the Sierra Nevada. Kolano Rock was one of the handsome land-
marks under which hundreds of thousands might have camped in these
days of overcrowding in our parks.

The following four photographs give a sample of the beauty that ex-
isted— the spacious floor, the cascades, Wapama Falls, and the living
setting for spectacular glacier-carved walls.

Yes, This Was Hetch Hetchy

But it had a good dam site. True, others existed downstream — and still
exist today — and the water would flow down to them, for diversion to a
distant, growing city. Hetch Hetchy, though, was at a higher elevation,
and the greater height could produce a little more power. A great battle
waged, but there was not yet a National Park Service, and conservation
organizations were few. As James D. Phelan wrote in 1911, espousing the
dam in this valley, . .its beauty will be enhanced . . . making the valley
more sightly and accessible. . . . There can be no question but that the
beauty of the scene, with a dam easily concealed by grasses and vines,
will be enhanced by the effect of the lake reflecting all above it and about
it and will be in itself a great and attractive natural object."

The Valley was made more accessible, but now for every million who
come to Yosemite Valley to stay, a mere thousand come to Hetch Hetchy
reservoir to turn around and leave.

but at the dam in 1955, photograph by David Brower

illustration from San Francisco Examiner placed
before each member of Congress

The Promise in 191 3:

"the beauty will be enhanced''

The Result

at head of reservoir
in 1955
by Philip Hyde

CONFLICT AND CONSCIENCE 73

built for city officials, well above the fluctuation zone that dominates
the broad vista, is a pitifully small flat area — too small for camping and
almost as unattractive as this dead zone. But on a nearby slope along a
dead-end trail we can find remnants of the former beauty of the place:
black oaks blossom in the springtime, yellow pines grow above a golden
carpet, flowers bloom under the trees and light up the cool shade under
a few dripping granite boulders. There's a temporary stream that runs a
few feet through this isolated garden and drops into a desolate zone of
rock, sand, and stumps. A patch or two of grass remains above the high
water line, but there will never be grass enough nor vines enough to con-
ceal the dam. We found that even this little bit of grass was spoiled by
the high-water debris and the monotonous view.

Across the valley the main falls are still there, shining in the spring-
time. But where is the setting? Where is the pulsing heartland of this
place? It is gone. It is gone beyond the recall of our civilization — thanks
to the dam where plaques praise the men who took so much from so
many for all our time.

{Details of riverbanks, Yosemite Valley)

How much they took we can't show, but we know from the men who
saw Hetch Hetchy before it was destroyed that Yosemite Valley is its
nearest counterpart. Hetch Hetchy cliffs were like this — free of the
bleach and water stains, unspoiled, set in forests, forests where you can
walk by the shaded streams.

Yosemite tells what a setting means everywhere you look. Here you
can see what the trees which are now stumps ought still to be doing for
Hetch Hetchy — providing a place to stroll, to relax, to listen, to see clear
water glide over clean rocks, to catch the sun sparkle, to breathe fragrant
air, to rest where the river pauses, to feel renewed, to know the beauty
of natural things.

There isn't enough of this in Yosemite to meet today's needs, let alone
tomorrow's. The future will find abundant power outside the parks —
parks for which there are no alternatives. So many of the parks are al-
ready overcrowded — certainly Yosemite is. And Hetch Hetchy could
have given to millions, for ages, much of what Yosemite gives. Its waters
could have remained an inspiration in their beautiful natural setting and
then be put to practical use downstream — ^just as Yosemite's river is.

The cliffs, the meadows, the groves, the streamside, the whole setting
— what do they mean to man? Something that you can neither measure
in dollars nor replace with dollars. Hetch Hetchy's setting is irretriev-
ably lost to all of us and to all generations. It need not have been.

74 Wildlands in Our Civilization

{Trees by Yosemite stream; stumps in Hetch Hetchy)

In 1916 Congress put up a sign to prevent any more tragedies like this
one. It was the National Park Act, which says to park exploiters, "Do
not enter." We'll do well to remember Hetch Hetchy, where once was
too often.

There was one unclouded crystal ball four decades ago, and William
E. Colby, now Honorary President of the Sierra Club, was looking into
it when he wrote the membership on the last day of 1909:

"I predict that long before Hetch Hetchy could possibly be needed for
a water supply for San Francisco, the travel thither will have become so
great and its needs as a campground, particularly in relation to the sur-
rounding park, so urgent, as to preclude the possibility of its use as a
reservoir. What I am opposed to is the determination right now that the
Hetch Hetchy shall be flooded fifty years from now. I feel that the deci-
sion ought properly to be reserved for those who hve fifty years hence.
We surely can trust that their decision will be a wiser one than any we
can make for them."

The decision, we know, would have been entirely different in 1959.
But how many wrong decisions are we rushing to make now that will
erase other Hetch Hetchys for all time? Our children deserve better.

We could sum it all up this way:

This, our civihzed world, is the house that Jack built. We hke most
of it.

And this, our Hving wilderness, is the garden that Jack hasn't built on,
the open space and the wild-land beauty that graces his house. It is his
only garden, and we know that there is no more where it came from.

Jack is very capable; he can doggedly expand his house, build a three-
car garage, and pave the remaining space except for an outcrop or two of
rock in the northwest forty. And we can see that he's on the verge.

If only Jack would pause a moment, to look up and to see! He isn't
going to like the end result himself, and his children surely will prefer
to inherit a balanced estate, for they will have no place else to go.

WILDERNESS OVERSEAS

^ Lee Merriman Talbot

The modern philosophy of wilderness as a public trust is largely
American. Most present-day provisions for wilderness throughout the
rest of the world stem from the example of our own national parks. In-
deed, many charters of wilderness areas throughout the world acknowl-
edge this origin, although their subsequent development and improve-
ment may have no connections with the United States.

Perhaps foremost of the world's true wilderness areas are the National
Parks of the Belgian Congo. Their 6,500,000 acres conserve intact the
flora, fauna, and topography representative of Central Africa. In 1925,
after an earher visit to the national parks of the United States, King
Albert of Belgium established the system. Although national parks in
name, they are actually true wilderness areas, with human entrance and
activities strictly controlled. Consequently they provide some of the few
areas in Africa where one can see examples of land unaffected by modern
man. The park system provides a magnificent perspective of Central
Africa's environments, from mountains near the equator whose snow-
capped peaks rise above 16,000 feet and whose lower slopes are the home
of the pygmies and the mountain gorilla, to the true tropical rain forests
in whose perpetual twilight dwell Africa's shyest and least-known wild-
life, and to the arid northern plains where the fifteen-foot-high elephant
grass, perpetuated by annual fires, provides shelter for a varied wildlife.
Here is the last safe refuge for the rare northern white rhinoceros.

As Africa becomes more intensively developed these wilderness parks
are assuming greater scientific and aesthetic importance. The park sys-
tem has developed under the powerful leadership of Belgium's Dr.
Victor Van Straelen and his international National Parks Administrative

[75

76 Wildlands in Our Civilization

Commission (a board of trustees with both Belgian and foreign mem-
bers). Economic and political pressures to open these lands to "improve-
ment" have been great in the past. They will be much greater in the
future.

The one major type of non-desert land in Africa not represented in
the parks of the Congo is the open veldt, or plains land. The finest re-
maining example is the Serengeti Plains of Tanganyika. Here is probably
the greatest remaining concentration of plains wildlife in the world, in
some of Africa's most spectacular scenery. The old problem of over-
grazing is acute.

The most striking topographic feature of the area is the Ngorongoro
Crater. Standing on the rim at 8,000 feet altitude, one can look 12 miles
across to the far side and 2,000 feet down to the lakes and hills on the
crater floor. Ngorongoro is in a cluster of ten peaks, some almost 12,000
feet high. Below them to the north and west lie the Serengeti Plains,
nearly 3,000 square miles of wild free prairie.

Grandiose though the scenery is, the area is most noted for the annual
migration of the plains animals. They come from the thousands of square
miles of brushland beyond the plains, joining into great herds en route,
eventually filing out into the plains spreading out evenly from horizon to
horizon. The animals have no fear of automobiles. Safe in a safari car
one can see the whole drama of plains life from birth to death. Once on
the plains, all animals, predators and prey alike, drop their young.

Here one can also see the Masai and their vast herds of economically
worthless cattle. They have already overgrazed and laid waste too much
of the 23,000 square miles of Tanganyika they control, and as they move
into the Serengeti they bring the desert with them, and the wilderness
and wildlife must bow before their herds. Just last year an American
wildlife expedition helped to halt a political move to open the plains to
unrestricted Masai grazing.* In many ways this area is illustrative of
the threats to what is left of the world's wilderness.

Another of the world's outstanding wilderness areas, equatorial again
but 5,000 miles east of Africa, is Java's Udjun Kulon Reserve. It is a
bulbous peninsula reaching from the western tip of mainland Java into
the Sunda Straits. The area was established about 1915 by the Dutch as
an "integral nature reserve" — part of an extensive system of parks, mon-
uments, and reserves originally patterned after America's national parks.

The Udjun Kulon protects most of the last three or four dozen Javan
rhinoceros left in the world, along with representatives of the rest of the

* The expedition was sponsored by the Wildlife Management Institute and the
American Committee for International Wild Life Protection, backed by Mr. R.
Arundel and organized and led by the author.

WILDERNESS OVERSEAS 77

rich Javan wildlife, including banteng (Javan wild ox), rusa deer (simi-
lar to our elk), mouse deer, barking deer, wild pigs, monkeys, leopards,
and tigers. Deep in the interior are giant banyan trees — Javan equiva-
lents of our Big Trees. High in the sunlight world of the forest's upper
branches lives one of the most varied and gorgeous bird faunas to be
found anywhere. Among the new governments of southern and eastern
Asia, Indonesia alone has established a Nature Protection (Conserva-
tion) Department whose duties include maintenance of her parks and
reserves.

Although the roots of giant banyans twine around remains of villages
destroyed by Krakatoa 74 years ago, today Udjun Kulon is a true wilder-
ness. This, in fact, is the situation as it exists in most wilderness areas in
the world. Except for the polar regions and some of the more inaccessible
mountain areas, it is extremely difficult to find land anywhere that has
not been altered by man. The history of the world's tropic lands is one
of continual shifting back and forth between human occupation and wild-
ness. One doesn't have to look for such evidence at Cambodia's Angkor
Wat or Central America's Mayan-pyramid cities, rising through the
tangled roots and trunks of otherwise virgin-appearing forest. Through-
out most of the world's tropic lands, the trees or grasses are growing
out of lands once used and abandoned by man.

The only practical access to Udjun Kulon is by boat ; the staff of the
reserve lives on a nearby island and the only obvious human modifica-
tions are the patrol paths along the coasts and a few openings made in
the nearby jungle to provide better habitat for the banteng and rusa.

India has a wilderness tradition at least 2300 years old. One of her
finest, present-day wilderness areas (one of the very few) is the Kazi-
ranga Wild Life Sanctuary in Assam. The Kaziranga lies at the foot of
the Himalayas on a broad flood plain of the Brahmaputra River. A 160-
square-mile jungle of elephant grass, broken by low, tree-covered ridges,
it was set aside some 50 years ago to protect the great Indian rhinoceros.
Here the last real concentration of these animals is carefully protected,
along with a representative sample of the region's wildlife.*

The area can be entered only in dugout canoe or on elephant back.
Yet, wild though it is, visible from any high point in the sanctuary are
the houses and cultivated fields of the local people. The Kaziranga is
typical of wilderness throughout most of the world — it is a small, isolated
wild island in the midst of a great agricultural or industrial sea.

Most of us think of threats to wilderness in terms of industrial ex-
ploitation. We think of neon, crowds, and machinery; but throughout

* Cf. the author's "Stalking the Great Indian Rhinoceros," National Geographic
Magazine, March 1957.

78 Wildlands in Our Civilization

most of the world the threat, although equally real, is much less spec-
tacular. It is merely the result of increasing population and land use.

A striking example of man's growing impact on the land is the Great
Thar Desert in western India. At the time of Christ, Indian rhinoceros
roamed in grass jungles in the middle of what is now desert. And for the
past 80 years the desert has been advancing into the rest of India at the
rate of one-half mile a year along its whole long perimeter. That means
that in 80 years, an estimated 56,000 square miles, or an area equal to
that of Wisconsin, has been turned into shifting sand.

The mechanics of this land degradation seem clear. The starting point
is the mature forest with its wildlife, fertile soil, and abundant water.
The lumber is cut, often clear-cut with young growth destroyed. The
land is then cultivated for a time, then grazed and overgrazed. There
can be no replacement of trees or grass, for everything green is eaten by
ravenous livestock. When there is nothing left for cattle, goats take over,
and when the goats have left, nothing remains but sand or blowing dust.
This story holds true, with the same plot and characters, but with differ-
ent stage scenery and costumes, throughout much of the world.

To illustrate the effect of this land-use pattern on wilderness, let us
consider Kashmir, the ancient Moguls' "paradise on earth." This is a
lovely mountain land in northernmost India, lying at about the same
latitude as San Francisco, and bordered by Tibet, China, and Pakistan.
The British with the local maharajah set aside magnificent wild areas
here. But when independence came, here as in most former colonies, the
tendency during the first burst of nationalism was to reject all that
smacked of the previous "imperialism" or "colonialism." Parks and wil-
derness areas were thought of as something kept away from the people
by the former rulers rather than as a resource maintained for them, so
the first reaction was to destroy them, to take "what was rightfully
ours." On top of this came political and military unrest with a side effect
of a large population suddenly armed but with little discipline. Among
the results have been large-scale poaching leading to the virtual exter-
mination of the Kashmir stag, heavy forest cutting, and overgrazing.

Through much of Kashmir up to and above timberline one runs into
herders and livestock. In less than ten years much of this land changed
from dense conifer forest or park lands like the best of our Sierra or
Rockies, to what are approaching high-altitude deserts, with the vegeta-
tion pulled apart, cut, overgrazed, and burned out — and the soil too.

Economic need, destructive land use, and destructive nationalism form
a constantly recurring pattern deadly to wilderness. Until all three of
these factors are somewhat ameliorated it is hard to be optimistic about
the future of wilderness lands throughout the world.

WILDERNESS OVERSEAS 79

As my last example I would like to mention an area not usually
thought of as living wilderness — the Middle East. Much of it is arid
desert, but when Moses led the children of Israel through the Sinai wil-
derness, it was a live wilderness with wildlife and trees. Today one can
go for days through that country and never see a living thing. The moun-
tains above the Promised Land were cloaked with dense forest, with
pine, oak, and cedar; and in the more open areas, Asiatic lions stalked
abundant wildlife. Today these mountains are largely dead stone skele-
tons, and the last small remnant of the Asiatic lions is to be found 3,000
miles to the east. There are still two more or less living wilderness areas
left — in northern Lebanon and western Syria. Until recently, protected
by inaccessibility and unsettled conditions, the forest here remained
intact; but within the last few years, lumbering and cultivation have
begun to move into these last forests. When the land's fertility has been
cropped out and the trees have been cut off, the crops will give way to
grazing. Once overgrazing has gone far enough, the starving animals
preventing grass, brush, and tree reproduction, the area will assume the
desert aspect of most of the Middle East.

This remnant biblical wilderness illustrates one of the very real eco-
nomic values of wilderness that, perhaps, is not often thought of in our
country. It would be easy to say, looking at most of the desert Middle
Eastern lands, that this area never did support much life, or that the old
records of forests and crops are wrong, or that if there were trees here
once there has since been a climatic change. But in these remaining wild
forest areas we have the living proof that this was not the case. North
Lebanon and western Syria provide a point of reference by which one
may judge the condition of the land as it was, see what man has done to
the rest of the land, and therefore see what can be done with what land
is left.

For the United States, wilderness is a powerful diplomatic weapon.
Most of us are aware of the often less-than-friendly attitude toward the
United States in many countries, and we are aware of the fact that all
too often we are considered an industrial nation with a dollar sign for a
heart.

I have found in a number of countries, especially those of Asia and
Africa, that one of the most effective answers to this belief is our system
of wilderness areas and national parks and what they stand for to us.

About three hundred years before Christ, India had what corresponds
to a system of wilderness areas and national parks. This was established
by India's beloved Emperor Ashoka. The fact that our allegedly mate-
rialist country has led the rest of the world in the re-establishment of
this idea is a deeper bond with Indians than millions of dollars in aid.

80 Wildlands in Our Civilization

The United States has been a modern day pioneer and leader in wilder-
ness areas. But with this leadership comes responsibihty. What we do
with our wilderness areas may determine what others can do with simi-
lar areas in their countries. We have pioneered also the international
approach to parks and wilderness areas, and this seems the only effective
way to assure wilderness in many parts of the world.

In the international view, our wilderness is a great responsibility; but
it is also a great opportunity.

WILDERNESS AND CULTURE

^A. Starker Leopold

In search of security, comfort, and ease, man has labored in the past
few thousand years to conquer and civiHze the wilderness. Having done
so, and while enjoying the fruits of physical well-being, he developed a
taste for activities that satisfy his soul as well as his body. To these ac-
tivities we apply the collective term "culture." The relationship between
culture and the original wilderness is perhaps worth exploring.

Historically speaking, the relationship has been an inverse one — cul-
ture and the humanities have flourished as the wilderness was conquered.
This is easily understandable in the early stages of social advance. The
cave dweller, faced with the daily task of gathering fresh food, had
scant time for letters and arts, although all primitive people have left
expressions of these. But as man institutionalized the exploitation of the
earth around him, his daily bread became assured, and leisure time, at
least among the upper social classes, permitted more indulgence in the
pleasures of cultivating the mind.

Periodically through the pages of history we meet indications of
surges of liberal thinking about man's activities and social relationships.
The term "humanities" means the study of human values throughout
history. Beginning with the Renaissance and the revolt against religious
pedagogy, men of learning looked back to the philosophers of earlier
eras for leads to what is important and what is worth knowing. But not
often were man's relationships to nature seriously explored. When at last
the study of natural phenomena was accepted as worthy of the dignity
of the sages, the objectives were principally practical, not philosophical.
Modern medicine, engineering, and agriculture are a few of the applied
fields of natural science that have flourished and have accounted for
much of the recent advance of civilization, without, however, any com-

[81

82 Wildlands in Our Civilization

mensurate advance in the philosophy of man's relationship to the world
around him.

It is only in very recent years — less than a century in fact — that an
attentive attitude toward undisturbed and unutilized nature has begun
to emerge. It is surprising that in the long history of man's conquest of
the earth there is no evidence of sustained effort on the part of any
people to preserve native landscape for its own sake, until our own na-
tional park system began to take form late in the nineteenth century.

There were of course elaborate programs of preserving and culturing
certain elements of flora and fauna for purposes of man's use. For ex-
ample, one of the most complete plans of wildhfe management ever
devised was observed by Marco Polo in the realm of Kublai Khan. The
Great Khan maintained fields of grain and adjoining shelters for the use
of partridges and other wild animals, so that he might find good sport
when he went afield to fly his falcons. Most of the so-called parks and
forests of mediaeval Europe were similarly managed for specific pur-
poses— usually game and forest products combined.

Throughout history there are records of zoos and botanical gardens
maintained by rulers and men of means, proving that people had an
avocational interest in natural history even if they lacked appreciation
of the undisturbed wilderness per se. Curiously, two of the most elab-
orate zoological parks were on this continent in the capitals of the Aztec
and Tarascan empires in Mexico, although these peoples were not far
advanced by European or Asiatic cultural standards.

But there is a world of difference between the creation of a zoo or a
botanical garden and the maintenance of an undisturbed natural area.
In a zoo man is rearranging and managing nature for his own interest
and amusement. In the wilderness he is showing respect for nature as it
existed in the first place. It is the emergence of this element of respect
that deserves special attention, for it marks a turning point in man's
view of the earth.

That the peoples of the world were receptive to a philosophy of na-
ture preservation was manifested by the way the national park idea
swept from continent to continent once it was announced in the United
States. In a few decades natural preserves of one sort or another were
created in many parts of the earth. European countries that had no
wilderness left at home applied the idea to their colonies and depend-
encies. The British Empire was outstanding in this regard, but Germany,
Belgium, Holland, and some others followed suit. Many Latin American
countries and even some independent nations of Asia and Africa joined
in the new movement. The dedicated areas went by many names — parks,

WILDERNESS AND CULTURE 85

game refuges, crown forests, or simply nature preserves. But the basic
idea was the same — the preservation of unexploited and more or less
unmanaged natural areas.

The implications of this new look toward the outdoors can scarcely
be overemphasized. From a tradition of conquest and subjugation of
nature and the wilderness, extending back to the earliest pages of his-
tory, man suddenly finds within himself a desire and an obligation to
preserve untrammeled some remnants of the natural scene he has labored
so long to bend to his material needs. That all nations have not suc-
ceeded equally well in bringing about this reform is beside the point.
The issue is one of intent and acknowledgment of something that is
right, even if it is not completely attainable.

Coming back to the origin of this idea in the United States, I have
difficulty in seeing any logical reason for the sudden and inexplicable
emergence of so sweeping a reversal in traditional philosophy at the time
and place where it occurred. One would have supposed that appreciation
of wild country would have emerged first in some overpopulated region
where wildness was at a premium. Instead, Yellowstone National Park
was created in 1872 when the United States was still considerably un-
derpopulated and major effort was being directed to the conquest and
settlement of the West. Yet the Congress and the people readily accepted
the idea of setting aside this large block of country for recreational needs
which at that time scarcely existed. Thinking as a biologist I see this
emergence of a new idea as comparable to a macromutation in organic
evolution — one of those sweeping shifts of evolutionary direction that
come suddenly, and without forewarning, like the emergency of the flat-
fishes from the normal teleost line. There is no gradual approach.

Once born, the concept of nature preserves spread rapidly, and at the
same time evolved. Let us consider the evolution of thought regarding
the national parks of this country — prototypes of all to follow. The
initial idea in the first half dozen parks was to preserve for public access
such natural geologic features as geysers, hot springs, spectacular moun-
tains, and canyons. Fauna and flora were less seriously considered. The
first botanical features to be emphasized were the big trees on the west
slope of the Sierra Nevada. Consideration of native animal life came
later, and then on a classified basis. The "good" species like deer were
protected, but the "bad" actors, including wolves, coyotes, and moun-
tain Hons, were controlled in accordance with the common-sense policy
of the day. Bears were fed garbage and elk were fed hay. There was a
carry-over of the outdoor-zoo idea which took some years to die out, dur-
ing which period wolves and lions unfortunately were exterminated in

84 Wildlands in Our Civilization

many Rocky Mountain parks. This event has led directly to the difficult
problems of overpopulation by deer and elk that plague the National
Park Service today.

Likewise, the idea of leaving substantial blocks of park land unde-
veloped and in true wilderness status came long after the parks were
created. The initial hope was to build roads, railroads, and hotels any-
where within the parks that people wanted to go. But this utilitarian
concept of park development and management gave way gradually to the
informal zoning idea that guides park programs today.

In short, the national parks as preserves of unmanaged nature did not
spring forth in full bloom. They tended always toward naturalness, ex-
cept in the heavily developed centers of activity where, unfortunately,
the trend up to now has been strongly in the other direction.

There is still one striking exception in the trend toward naturalness
in park preservation — the complete exclusion of fire from all areas, even
those that burned naturally every year or two before becoming parks.
Fire is declared evil and destructive, just as coyotes and mountain lions
were designated as evil and destructive in the parks 25 years ago. Yet
many forest types that are to be perpetuated developed with fire as a
dominant molding element. I am convinced that ground fires some day
will be reinstated in the regimen of natural factors permitted to main-
tain the parks in something resembling a virgin state. Both aesthetic con-
siderations of open airy forest versus dense brush, and assurance of
safety from conflagration of accumulated fuel will force this issue sooner
or later.

Even as the National Park Service was being created, other types of
natural areas were coming into being in this country. Some of the na-
tional wildlife refuges were created. The great system of Forest Service
wilderness areas came soon after, along with state and municipal parks,
and various types of national preserves controlled and operated by a
host of agencies, organizations, and even individuals. We take for
granted that preserving native associations of fauna and flora is in the
public interest and is to be encouraged. The basic concept is scarcely
open to challenge any more in this country — we disagree and wrangle
only over what areas are to be preserved, by whom, and how it should
be done.

And so it is in much of the rest of the world. It is agreed that most re-
newable natural resources are to be used, wisely and with due provision
for sustained yield. But some areas are to be excluded from this plan and
kept for the wonder and edification of the citizens. These two concepts
are not always realized, but they are recognized, on an international

WILDERNESS AND CULTURE 85

level. The natural scene now commands respect. Its preservation is ac-
cepted as moral and proper. From the Serengeti Plain to the Great
Smokies, from the Brooks Range to Tierra del Fuego, conscientious peo-
ple are struggling to preserve samples of native landscape. Often the
pressures of economic need and human populations make the cause
seem almost hopeless. Yet my over-all impression is that the effort is
gaining in strength, not losing.

Wherein lies the appeal of this movement? What forces motivate its
spread?

The need is not solely for recreation in the sense of new playgrounds
for people to get some fresh air. In many countries the preserved areas
are used scarcely at all for recreation by the citizens. Nor are the edu-
cational and scientific values of wilderness, of which we often speak,
weighed heavily into the equation.

The only possible force that could be motivating the effort to preserve
natural areas is the moral conviction that it is right — that we owe it to
ourselves and to the good earth that supports us to curb our avarice to
the extent of leaving a few spots untouched and unexploited.

When one considers the spread of this idea over the earth in sixty-odd
years it is cause indeed for wonder. Here is an addition to the accepted
mores of people in all continents, imposed suddenly on codes of ethics
that have been evolving for many centuries.

And so when we find cause for alarm and discontent with the progress
of the wilderness movement it may help perhaps to take the long view —
to see how astonishingly far the idea has progressed in the few decades
of its existence.

I think that when future philosophers scan back through the records
of human history and human thought they may put their finger on this
century as a time of outstanding advance in man's feeling of responsibil-
ity to the earth. Whether man can succeed in preserving an attractive
and livable world is the problem that lies ahead.

ARE BEAVERS TOO BUSY?

Lowell Sumner

Have you been back recently to the place where you spent your early
years? Have woods and fields been replaced by suburbs, busy high-
ways, factories? Would you say these new things have created more
freedom or beauty in the places you once knew — more tranquility and
happiness?

Whatever your opinion on this score, you probably will agree that the
changes since your early years have brought more people, more com-
plicated living conditions, more stress. Biologically, these three situa-
tions— more people, more complications, more stress — are three inter-
related phases of a single developing situation — the population increase.
Let us consider how they add up to what are commonly called ''the pres-
sures of civiHzation."

Every day there are one hundred thousand more people in the world
than there were the day before — four thousand every hour. Every day
there are seven thousand more mouths to feed in the United States
{Newsweek, June 6, 1955). Every morning in CaHfornia alone there
are 1600 more people having breakfast (Hugh Brown, 1956, p. 301).
Today the world population is about 2% billion; by the year 2,000 it is
expected to be nearly five billion (Harrison Brown, 1954, p. 99).

In 1955 an international symposium of seventy scientists attempted
the first large-scale evaluation of "Man's Role in Changing the Face of
the Earth." They produced 1200 pages of staggering evidence (Thomas,
1956) that the results of man's activities are now comparable in magni-
tude to those of major climatic, ecologic, and geologic forces.

From the Arctic to the Antarctic Circle man has brought about pro-
found changes in forests, grasslands, wetlands, and tundra; in streams
86]

ARE BEAVERS TOO BUSY? 87

and coastlines; in soils and mineral resources. Even the earth's atmos-
phere has been altered — by the consumption of coal, petroleum, and
other fossil fuels which have raised the carbon dioxide content of the
air by ten per cent in the last century — ^possibly with long-range effects
on the earth's climate and eventually even on the chemistry of the ocean
{ibid., p. 489).

These findings underline the urgency of protecting our relatively wild
areas while there is still time ; they may also cause us to wonder toward
what destiny our planet-load of humans is drifting.

A biologist looks at the human population increase as he would the
increase of other forms of life. All are subject to the same fundamental
biological laws governing the availability and rate of use of raw mate-
rials. We humans may forget these natural laws, or postpone their
consequences by complicated stratagems, but in the end we cannot
change them any more than the motion of the earth.

When we are feeling the pressures of civilization and pondering their
causes, a visit to a wilderness or natural area helps not only to restore
our tranquility, but also to give a better understanding of our place in
the scheme of things. For natural-history observations in such places
help us to see our civilization as basically similar to the communities of
other creatures.

By following the ups and downs of other animal populations, whose
shorter life cycles swing through changes which require centuries for
us, we gain more insight into our own destiny.

To illustrate this point we might take almost any animal community,
from ants to elephants; but let us consider a colony of beavers — since
they love to conquer nature with feats of industry and engineering — and
note how the rise and decline of such a colony parallels the rise and fall
of human civilizations. Then if our reasoning appears sound, we may
conclude that if wilderness experience and insight are good for you and
me, surely they are basic to the education of leaders of nations and
makers of public policy.

When the beaver community is young and vigorous but not yet at
maximum size there are ample food supplies, plenty of dwelling sites,
and enough leisure to provide every family with a gracious living; there
is sufficient screening cover to give protection against natural enemies
and enough undeveloped but economically justifiable dam sites to keep
all engineers happy.

In short, at this stage of the beaver community's history there is for
each individual the fullest outlet for his natural inclinations and desires
without injurious competition and strife from others of his kind. This
situation offers for beavers the happiest and most tranquil way of life.

88 Wildlands in Our Civilization

For beavers this is history's Golden Age of self-expression, of freedom
from want and fear.

What happens to such a community as time passes? With no more
foresight than is usually shown by nations, the beaver community just
keeps on conquering nature and multiplying. Let us say that in ten gen-
erations the community triples in size. This brings us to the first of the
three phases that I mentioned at the outset:

Phase I: More People (Beavers). — As the multiphcation con-
tinues the community sooner or later reaches the point where the en-
vironment cannot go on supporting more beavers at current multiphca-
tion rates. The shortages of basic natural resources begin to be felt.
This is:

Phase II: More Complicated Living Conditions. — For the

beavers entering this phase the sudden shrinkage in the supply of aspens,
alders, and willows is at first almost obscured by what would appear to
be the highest peak of industry and prosperity ever enjoyed by the com-
munity. If they were human enough to make forecasts and speeches, the
top planners and economists of the beaver world would assure the com-
munity that with housing starts at an all-time high, unemployment never
before so low, foreign enemies effectively held in check by the strongest
defenses ever built, and the biggest crop of beaver babies in history, the
economy was climbing to ever-higher levels.

But aspens, alders, and willows are as basic to beaver civilization as
forests, soil, and farm products are to ours.

Imperceptibly at first, then more swiftly, the complex problems gather.
Each month the beavers must travel farther from home and protective
cover to get the logs they need for food and shelter. One of the vital
canals built in earlier times for transporting raw materials gradually is
stripped of its protective defense of willows because now these must be
used up for food — thus, when the pinch comes, guns are exchanged for
butter. But this renders the canal increasingly unsafe to use because it
is close to the habitation of an enemy who, though once not greatly
feared, now seems to be constantly lying in wait — a bear that walks like
a man.

Some beaver consideration is given to digging an alternate canal in
less hostile territory, but by now so much time and energy is required of
the workers in the long haul of scarce materials from outlying territories
that the community lacks the vitality (the beaver power) to undertake
such a costly alternate project. It is decided to wait until the current
pubhc-works budget of time and energy can be better balanced.

What the beavers do not comprehend is that the remaining food sup-
plies that a new canal might transport still would be insufficient to main-

The Birth and Death of High Sierra Meadows

2. Mature wet meadow, with normal life expectation of perhaps two hundred years
but here showing first small premature invasion of forest trees as a result of intense
grazing — Williams Meadow, Kings Canyon National Park.

3. High Sierra meadow grass once looked like this, but such a sight is rare today —
Moraine Meadow, Kings Canyon National Park, where no grazing was allowed for
five years.

4. Heavy grazing causes unpalatable weeds and forest trees to replace the original
tall grasses — Vidette Meadow, Kings Canyon National Park.

5. As overgrazing continues, the grass roots are completely killed, leaving bare, dusty
patches which are taken over by weeds, brush, and forest trees — Tent Meadow,
Kings Canyon National Park.

6. This brush\ patch of sand is remembered by oki-time Sierra Club members as
a grass meadow - Junction Meadow, Kings Canyon National f-*ark.

The meadow, jointly owned by the National Park Service and the Sierra Club,
by mutual agreement has not been grazed by government or private stock

since the establishment of the national park in 1940.

7. Under natural conditions, erosion of meadows b>" water is almost neelitiiblf
because the tough, interlacing grass roots bind the particles of soil securely. However,
here the roots have been weakened by grazing and trampling, and the water has
begun to cut a channel that will grow deeper — Williams Meadow.

8. As the grass roots die, the channel begins cutting through the soft, glacier-deposited
soil. Waterfalls like this look harmless at first but soon grow deeper, and continually
work backward upstream until the once-level meadow is scarred by a deep trench —
William? Meadow

9. The trench grows deeper, the banks cave and fall into the stream, to be washed
away. The surrounding grassland begins to dry as the water table sinks, and the
grass, already weakened by overgrazing, declines still more rapidly — Williams Meadow.

10. As the stream continues to deepen its channel, the grass dies out and the trampled
sand is exposed to wind and water erosion — Williams Meadow.

11. Once started, erosion damage runs in a vicious circle as the grass dies out over
constantly widening areas and the stream channel, once just a wet seep on the mead-
ow surface, cuts ever deeper — Boggy Meadow, Kings Canyon National Park.

12. Al last the meadow dies. At tliis late >tai:e, though grazing should be stopped,
fifty years of total protection would not bring complete recovery.
Photographs 1 through 12 are by Lowell Sumner, courtesy of the National Park
Service, reprinted from the Sierra Club Bulletin, 1947 .

ARE BEAVERS TOO BUSY? 97

tain the current rate of the population expansion. As events turn out, the
increasingly hard-pressed beavers are never able to balance their budget
of energy and time against their food requirements. The old canal is
abandoned because of the bear and the new one is never built.

With the passage of time and the added complications of the lost canal
the pinch presses ever harder. Because repairs on dams in the home area
no longer can be made promptly the water gradually drops, leaving
many beaver lodges high, dry, and unprotected.

Family life is disrupted by these widening cracks in the economic and
social structure, and there are many broken homes. The old days of easy
and gracious living are gone. All members of the community must work
harder and longer. A beaver's working day now brings only half the
tangible results it brought in the Golden Age; the beaver's dollar has
been devaluated.

By now the virgin forest homeland of the Golden Age has changed be-
yond all recognition into a cut-over wasteland, crowded with dilapi-
dated houses and devoid of the shade, space, and green vistas that a
beaver needs for tranquility and health. Discouraged and discontented,
some adventurous souls leave the worn-out community forever, hoping
to discover fresher, wilder lands where a pioneering beaver can make a
fresh start.

More and more apathetically, the balance of the population struggles
against mounting odds. Longer hours of work performed on insufficient
food take an increasing toll; deaths from exposure, disease, and deteri-
orated housing mount. Enemies discover that undernourished workers
plodding to distant remnants of the aspen groves lack their former vital-
ity and aggressiveness in self-defense. More and more beavers and their
badly needed supplies never get home.

As malnutrition is prolonged there is a decline in the fertihty of the
community. Only a few small litters of beavers are born, and infant
mortality reaches an all-time high. So the decline of the community ac-
celerates as replacements fail to keep pace with attrition. These are
nature's harsh methods of cutting an overexpanded population back
to size.

From here on the fate of our beavers is uncertain. Many may succumb
to a new hazard — stress disease — to be mentioned later. If this does not
happen, and if they are lucky enough to have a favorable environment
and climate, their decline may stop short of complete enfeeblement. If
less favorably situated, the community may wither away like ancient
Babylon, Greece, the Roman Empire, Persia, and other civilizations
whose vitality faded when their forests, soils, and waters were used up.

In our own Phase II — More Complicated Living Conditions — today's

98 Wildlands in Our Civilization

civilized pressures become ever more complex because we have invented
an accelerating industrial technology not possessed by the beavers or
by our own earlier civilizations. Industrialization allows us to get away
with the largest populations of all time — for a while.

But since these enormous populations are necessarily concentrated in
cities, they lose their feel for the land, and forget that its resources are
the only thing that keeps their cities going. In this acceleration of tempo
and complexity, and in this forgetfulness of the land, the biologist sees
mankind facing the possibility of more violent and disastrous ups and
downs of population than any recorded in history.

Looking almost anywhere we can read the signs that in our own coun-
try, once so richly endowed with natural resources, we are in the late
afternoon of our Golden Age. The shadow of biological complications
and consequences scarcely touches us yet, but we can see it just ahead.

Already we experience large-scale failure to eliminate one of civiliza-
tion's waste products — smog. The scramble to move away from it is on
as the tide of suburban development covers up farm lands, and spreads,
at the national rate of 1,000,000 acres a year {ibid., p. 694), far out
even into the desert, from Palmdale to Victorville, from Palm Springs to
Twentynine Palms.

But the smog keeps following. Last December while camping in an un-
inhabited desert region northeast of Barstow my family and I saw a new
real-estate development sign saying, ''Live here and breathe pure air.
No smog." Yet the air that day was milky with smog drifting over the
mountains and across the desert from the ever-expanding seat of civi-
lization 80 miles away. Today it is not uncommon to see smog creeping
even into that remote retreat from cities — Death Valley.

Once upon a time water was taken for granted like air and sunshine.
But [former] Interior Secretary Fred Seaton warned last November
that soon "water may become this country's number-one domestic
problem."

A lot of seemingly unrelated complications and frustrations begin to
fit together when we ponder the basic cause in biological terms: the
mounting cost of building or buying a home; the overcrowding of our
public-school and highway systems; the decline in the bag-and-creel
limits allowed hunters and fishermen; the need to teach boy scouts that
they must give up scouting's traditional free use of the ax and no longer
make a bed of fresh pine boughs ; the increase in traffic lights and park-
ing meters; the multiplication of signs saying "don't."

These restrictions on personal freedom, this overcrowding of public
facilities, these higher costs reflecting scarcity, are biological symptoms
of population saturation. Seen in that light, the same underlying situa-

ARE BEAVERS TOO BUSY? 99

tion explains the rising price of coffee and postage stamps, the deteriora-
tion of mountain meadows in the national parks, the battles to save
wilderness, and the deadly international struggle for the world's "under-
developed" regions.

Thus as our civilization speeds ever faster down the highroad of des-
tiny we see a green light up ahead changing to orange, and we know
that in a moment it will flash red. But we have not yet begun to apply
the brakes.

If the ups and downs of animal populations and related lessons of the
wilderness can give us a better insight into these pressure problems of
human civilization, the wilderness may have made its greatest contribu-
tion to human welfare. Clearly, for man as for beavers the time in-
evitably approaches when the world's food supplies, living space, and
natural resources will be insufficient to maintain the current rate of the
world's population expansion.

When that time comes even the noblest ideals — of helping other na-
tions, of saving wilderness for posterity — cannot hold back the operation
of universal biological laws. Then man will either have to learn to regu-
late peacefully his own numbers or undergo a devastating and possibly
irreversible decline.

Our most immediate hope lies in working to bring about a more wide-
spread awareness of this approaching danger and the urgency of a real-
istic, civiHzed solution.

But we still have to consider the previously mentioned third aspect of
the pressure cycle:

Phase III: Stress. — Emotional stress is aggravated by the difficult
times that we have been describing. Modern medicine is attaching great
significance to the stress condition in human beings.

Coincidentally, game biologists are finding that when animal com-
munities multiply until they reduce their habitat to a biological slum,
normal feelings of security and tranquility give way to mounting ir-
ritability toward companions and neighbors. Bickering and strife greatly
increase. This lowers the physical health of the entire community and
its ability to adjust to the still-mounting pressures brought on by the
overcrowding.

Lowering of vitality through the stress caused by overcrowding seem-
ingly occurs in virtually all mammals so far investigated (Christian,
1950; Christian and Davis, 1955, 1956) and is well demonstrated in
such socially tolerant species as rats, mice, muskrats, rabbits, and deer.

In extreme cases, particularly among lemmings, voles (Godfrey,
1955), and snowshoe hares in the north (Christian and Davis, 1955),
the deadly effects of stress eventually may exceed the combined toll from

100 Wildlands in Our Civilization

malnutrition, natural enemies, and contagious disease. When this point is
reached vast populations die off within a few weeks or months giving
rise to the well-known cycles of alternating abundance and scarcity of
certain animals of the far north.

Post-mortem examinations of such animals reveal stress damage to
the internal organs including inflammation or ulceration of the digestive
tract, and permanent metabolic derangements comparable to those which
we shall describe in considering the effects of stress on man.

In our own daily experience can we doubt that the increased conges-
tion, job competition, noise, tempo, and general complication of modern
life sometimes disturb our feelings of tranquility and security, our diges-
tion, and the pleasure of having close neighbors? The general concept of
stress as unwholesome nervous strain or emotional tension has been
clarified and sharpened by the latest medical research which indicates
that for human beings as for animals stress is a more deep-seated,
prevalent, and damaging condition than had been realized.

Dr. Hans Selye (1956) and others have shown than in man and other
vertebrate animals physical or emotional stress causes the body's system
of chemical governors — the endocrine glands — to produce powerful
chemical substances (hormones) in the proper amounts to adapt the
individual to withstand that particular stress. But their research further
shows that if the stress is too long continued the chemical equilibrium
eventually fails and the body becomes flooded with an excess of hor-
mones.

When this point is reached basic metabolism is upset, the abnormally
concentrated hormones attack the body itself and cause severe struc-
tural damage to many vital organs. Significantly, the most acute stresses
and the ones producing the most profound and long-lasting damage are
the emotional stresses.

We have long noted the prevalence of high blood pressure, heart and
kidney disease, and ulcers of the digestive tract among executives and
other conspicuous victims of the hectic life. Now it is demonstrated that
these breakdowns result from the hormones concentrated by prolonged
emotional stress. It is further revealed that other types of human illness
even when not actually caused by emotional stress are made worse by it
because the hormonal disturbance caused by the emotional upset pre-
vents the body from building up its normal resistance to the disease.

This relationship explains why so many maladies became rampant
during wars and famines (Selye, 1956, p. 204). It also underlies the
startling pronouncement of medical authorities that chronic emotional
stress now is a major cause of over 50 per cent of all illness (Schindler,
1954, p. 4), and that "an ever-increasing proportion of the human popu-

ARE BEAVERS TOO BUSY? 101

lation dies from the so-called wear-and-tear diseases, or degenerative
diseases, which are primarily due to stress" (Selye, 1956, p. 275).

As the pressures of civiHzation continue to mount there is increasing
import in Dr. Selye's discovery that each of us appears to be born into
the world with an inherited and unchangeable total reserve of adaptabil-
ity to stress. Each exposure to stress, despite the recovery brought by
rest, leaves a permanent scar within us and uses up a portion of our total
reserve that can never be replaced. So our life reserve of adaptability
resembles a nonrenewable bank account: we can needlessly accelerate
the rate of spending and throw away the precious years through ex-
cessive frustration, worry, irritation, tension; or we can spend Hfe's
capital more slowly, wisely, and happily by learning how to avoid or
mitigate many of life's stresses — and this brings us back once more to the
basic need for wilderness.

The therapeutic value of wilderness and natural areas in reheving or
preventing stress, and the philosophic value, have been recognized by
some people for many years. It was expressed by Aldo Leopold with un-
forgettable depth and clarity in his Sand County Almanac (1949), and
Round River (1953) ; and by John C. Merriam, who helped so many to
understand the significance, beauty, and healing power of natural things.

Of course wilderness is not the only antidote for stress, and this is
fortunate because few today can spend much of their lives in the wilder-
ness. Doctors now emphasize that relaxation on vacation trips must be
supplemented by learning better daily habits of thinking, feeling, and
avoiding unnecessary stress.

But though better attitudes and methods of solving life's problems
can mitigate the stress of our industrial age, they cannot abolish it. A
nationally prominent physician recognizes this as he records (Schindler,
1954, p. 30) that after leaving his own stress-induced pains at the office
while enjoying a tranquil vacation, he finds them waiting like a flock of
gremlins when he returns. So it becomes clear that as the pressures of
civihzation continue to increase, the therapeutic benefits of wilderness
and natural areas, the philosophy, understanding, and serenity derived
from contact with them, will be more and more needed by everyone.

If this need is widely enough recognized — and provided nations learn
to regulate their populations in peaceful and humane ways — we can hope
to keep and enjoy wilderness for tranquility and healing, always. Per-
haps the tremendous awakening of conservation forces in the past year
marks the beginning of this wider recognition, as illustrated by the battle
over Dinosaur, by current moves for a review of scenic resources for the
future and the estabhshment of a National Wilderness System, and by
the sense of urgency in conservation matters.

102 Wildlands in Our Civilization

National planning authorities say that we have possibly 50 years of
grace in which to solve our land-use problems before they deteriorate
beyond control. During this period of grace machines will give us more
and more leisure time which cannot be satisfactorily spent entirely on
gadgets and TV. More and more people will turn to their outdoor en-
vironment for recreation. The need of a better and more generally ap-
plied land ethic, of which our Sierra Club principles are a forerunner,
will be ever more sharply reahzed. (Thomas, 1956, pp. 904-05,
1004-08). Out of their increased leisure and their desire to preserve a
sane and healthful way of life, more and more people will organize on
behalf of wilderness. Therein lies our greatest challenge and our greatest
hope.

LITERATURE CITED

Brown, Harrison.

1954. The Challenge of Man's Future. New York: Viking Press, xii + 290 pp.
Brown, Hugh H.

1956. "Population of 58 Counties," The Tax Digest (California Taxpayers' Asso-
ciation), Vol. 34, pp. 301-2, 314-15.
Christian, John J.

1950. "The Adreno-Pituitary System and Population Cycles in Mammals," Jour-
nal of Mammalogy, Vol. 31, pp. 247-259.
Christian, John J. and David E. Davis.

1955. "Reduction of Adrenal Weight in Rodents by Reducing Population Size,"
Transcript of the Twentieth North American Wildlife Conference, pp.
177-188.

1956. "The Relationship Between Adrenal Weight and Population Status of
Urban Norway Rats." Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 37, pp. 475-486.

Godfrey, Gillian K.

1955. "Observations on the Nature of the Decline in Numbers of Two Microtiis
Populations." Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 36, pp. 209-214.

Leopold, Aldo.

1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University, xiii + 226 pp.

1953. Round River. Oxford University, xiii -f 173 pp.
Selye, Hans.

1956. The Stress of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill, xvi + 324 pp.
Schindler, John A.

1954. How to Live 365 Days a Year. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
xxviii + 222 pp.

Thomas, William L., Jr. (ed.).

1956. Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. An International Sympo-
sium under the co-chairmanship of Carl 0. Sauer, Marston Bates, Lewis
Mumford. University of Chicago Press, xxxviii -j- 1193 pp.

DE FACTO WILDERNESS:
WHAT IS ITS PLACE?

David R. Brower

In the last few years I have flown quite a bit. Rather, I have been
flown by experienced airline pilots. I have enjoyed it, the way Shelley
Berman does in his famous record. Once I safely have the ship off the
ground and before I have to start worrying about where we are going to
land and whether the pilot is really concentrating on his work between
these emergencies — and when it isn't too turbulent — I enjoy looking at
the countryside. One of my pet games is looking for fairly big pieces of
handsome terrain that have no roads or developments in them. Big
sweeps of country in the Rockies, for example, where either thanks to
the spruce budworm or to wildfire, we have those slopes that are the
glory of the Rockies, especially in mountain springtime and autumn.
I'm referring to the wonderful diversity we have of aspen slopes, mixed
with evergreen instead of being an unmitigated, monotonous spruce
desert. This diversity is the result of land management by the Creator.
The very best management.

There are still a few unspoiled, unroaded places. I have seen them be-
come fewer. Some of them are duly designated as Forest Service Primi-
tive, Wild, or Wilderness Areas. Some are not so designated but are
given even greater protection by being in national parks. Others aren't
legally wilderness areas at all. They're just plain wild. They are de facto
wilderness. In my favorite definition, they are simply "wilderness areas
which have been set aside by God but which have not yet been created
by the Forest Service."

Up until now, we have been hearing a lot about the created areas —
those which have been formally designated. For the past six years we

[ 103

104 Wildlands in Our Civilization

have been fighting for a wilderness bill. We have held ten biennial wilder-
ness conferences, both in the Northwest and in California, with one of
our purposes being to shift the protective machinery of Government off
dead center — to charge it with the responsibilities that a wilderness bill
would define. Although we have also helped protect our national parks,
have argued the public's case in primitive-area reclassifications, and have
attended the myriad details our bulletins plead hoarsely for you to write
letters about, still down deep the wilderness bill has been our basic con-
cern. Its progress has measured our progress.

Vast energy has been focused on this legislation for the past six years.
Printed testimony before congressional committees runs to something
over 2500 pages. The issues have been defined and redefined; dozens of
articles have been published in national magazines; and nearly every
major newspaper has carried editorials — several, in the best papers —
urging the bill's passage.

These wilderness conferences have deepened our perceptions of the
workings of the natural world about us, of our place in that world, and
our competence to belong in it. We have also learned a great deal more
about the workings of our Government. No one can have watched the
evolution of the wilderness bill, beginning with its unveiling in Portland
in 1956, without acquiring an intimate knowledge of the workings of
government, even the occasional non-workings. This knowledge is a gain
even if the bill should stall — and thereby demonstrate that those peo-
ple were right who urged moving swiftly for specific national parks in-
stead of general forest wilderness — all so susceptible, it seems, to bull-
dozer and chain saw.

But the wilderness bill should pass, must pass, and — with your in-
sistence— will pass. The key is your insistence; not just one letter, last
year, but the best consecutive letters, now, that you can get in the mail.

When your educated insistence has made the wilderness bill into
law, will our work be finished? I would like to think so, but our work
is just beginning; the bill will simply forge tools for the real job ahead
— passing some two per cent of the Nation's land area, unspoiled, to our
children. Part of our job will be to insure that the intent of the bill is
upheld and strengthened if its reasonable compromises are subverted by
unreasonable exploiters.

Where Was the De Facto Wilderness?

We have an important responsibility that is closely allied to the title of
this conference: ''The De Facto Wilderness: Going, Going . . The
best map of where it's going, I beheve, begins with the mapping of where
it is now and where it has come from.

DE FACTO WILDERNESS 105

Let me turn back to a time when a conference like this was almost in-
conceivable. One of the first explorers of the New World was an exuber-
ant soul named Pierre Esprit Radisson. Describing a once-exuberant
environment, the great valley of the Mississippi, Radisson writes: ''I
never saw a more incomparable country . . . Whatever a man could
desire was to be had in great plenty. . . . Europeans fight for a rock in
the sea against one another, or for a sterile land and horrid country. . . .
Contrary wise those [Mississippi] kingdoms are so delicious and under
so temperate a climate, plentiful of all things, the earth bringing forth
its fruit twice a year, the people live long and lusty and wise in their
way. . . ."

The people Radisson meant were, of course, the aborigines, the sav-
ages, the Indians who had such a profound adjustment to their natural
environment that 20,000 years of habitation had left it as stable, as
healthy, wealthy and lovely as Radisson celebrated it.

We are closing the book on our heritage, a fabulous volume written
across the land, the American wilderness.

The question today is: Will we as a nation recognize our debt of grati-
tude to that heritage — not just the material but the spiritual legacy con-
ferred by the continent we live on and love?

In the area now occupied by the continental United States, there were,
in 1654, two billion acres of wilderness. It was as vast, as abundant, and
as economically worthless as the sea.

Two interdependent phenomena have taken place in the elapsed 300
years. We started to put a dollar value on the wilderness and it began to
get scarce. As a wilderness, Manhattan Island sold for a handful of trin-
kets and 1 50 years later, the Louisiana Territory was sold by France for
15 milHon. That's not much for 530 million acres of wilderness. But the
price was going up. And the wilderness was going, going. . . .

Lewis and Clark had not yet descended the Columbia, when Clark
would exclaim suddenly, ''Ocean in view. Oh the Joy!" and where, as
Francis Parkman wrote, ''The wilderness of the woods met the wilder-
ness of waves."

It was only a little more than a hundred fabulous years later that any-
one stopped to wonder how much of that wilderness of woods remained.
We had shown ourselves to be the fastest disrupters of environment in
history.

How Fast Are We Driving Through Wilderness?

Some scouts, way out in front of us, saw the brink ahead and the need
for a sharp change in direction and speed. They put up some signs, like
the National Park Act, which said, "Go Slow, Sharp Turn." But we have

106 Wildlands in Our Civilization

hardly diminished the speed with which we rush through our inheritance.

As recently as 1926, L. F. Kneipp, Assistant Chief of the U.S. Forest
Service, prepared an inventory of wilderness in the national forests. His
definition of wilderness was generous by today's standards: an area
greater than 300 square miles without roads. He found 74 separate tracts
with a total square area of 55 million acres. In subsequent years, the
Forest Service classified some of this land in primitive areas and later in
wilderness and wild areas. A small portion of the acreage, such as the
Olympic Mountains of Washington, was transferred to the National
Park Service. But by far the largest part was logged, mined, penetrated
by roads, grazed, inundated by reservoirs, and so forth. In 1961, a com-
parable study by the Wildland Research Center of the University of
California found the number of areas satisfying Kneipp's definition re-
duced from 74 to 19, the total acreage reduced from 55 to 17 million.
And the size of individual areas was reduced also. The largest unit in
Mr. Kneipp's inventory contained 7 million acres. The largest unit in
the 1961 study contained 1.8 million.

That's hardly a generation's time. In it we spared essentially all the
big national park wilderness, but we drove over or otherwise dismem-
bered 38 million acres of a national forest wilderness. Our speed was
slightly in excess of a million acres cut up per year. And we aren't slow-
ing down for the turn. We are accelerating.

So in the story of our 300 years of conquest, most of the action is
taking place in the last chapter, and we are still clear-cutting a swath on
the last page.

Let me read a few paragraphs from that last page, just to suggest
what has happened to the American dream, to Radisson's promise. The
following passage is through the eyes of Ivan T. Sanderson, and it is
taken from the foreword to his new, very beautiful book. The Continent
We Live On. It begins with his journeys over the continent, gathering
material for the book — all over the continent. You name it, he saw it;
east, gulf, coast, west, Alaska.

"It was our opinion by the end of the trip that the United States
was indeed now essentially an urban and suburban nation . . . with but
one noticeable break on the Atlantic coast and one on the gulf, there is
virtually a continuous built-up strip. ... As for inland sites, the
Illinois-Ohio industrial area and the Allentown-Easton area in Pennsyl-
vania are the worst, but the enormous spread of the cities of Texas is
almost beyond belief.

"However few actual farmers there may be, agriculture has engulfed
much of the country, and a great part of it, classed as range, is today
a sort of monstrous wire entanglement. Deserts there are and of vast ex-

DE FACTO WILDERNESS 107

tent; and mountain ranges that look untouched; but both, as often as
not, prove to be dotted with oil wells, mines, and hamlets, while enor-
mous stretches are cropped for timber. Roads also have now usurped an
appreciable area of the land surface. But the worst feature of all . . .
is the litter. . . . There is, in fact, but one haven of hope in this coun-
try, and that is the magnificent system of national parks and sanctuaries.
By the grace of a few farsighted persons, . . . many of the finest, most
significant, and most typical areas of this country have been saved
(though only just in time) by the creation of these parks. There are still
many more areas that should be enclosed before it is too late. Unless
something drastic is done, and soon, the rest of this country will even-
tually become one great junk pile."

De Facto Destiny

Where is the de facto wilderness going, going? The question seems
almost academic, like asking where are the dodo and passenger pigeon
and all the other 20,000 or so extinct wild things going, going? It is all
but gone.

Where does it go for example when the Forest Service decides that
Waldo Lake should join a newly named class and become a landscape
management area? From what I have read in the Forest Service release
about this landscape management area idea, it is just warmed-over Dead-
man Summit, where some national forest just southeast of Yosemite con-
tained one of the most beautiful stands of virgin Jeffrey pine you ever
saw, open, parklike, easily accessible to millions of vacationists. There,
too, recreation was judged to be predominant. But the logs came out
just the same. Not as a timber sale, of course. Just as a result of a little
management to make it a ^'thrifty, healthy forest, esthetically pleasing,"
"opening up for the greater number of roadside recreationists."

The sad thing is that these sawlog semantics keep fooling people.
They won't fool those who heard the same pretty words at Deadman
Summit or Kern Plateau — they saw the logs go out in the same old way,
saw the watershed torn up, saw the recreation potential blighted and the
fine promises forgotten. They got a new cocktail for their trouble — wil-
derness on the rocks. Trees, they learned, are for sawmills — as soon as
merchantable. Wilderness lovers should go above timberline, or settle
for the fringe benefits of old-growth trees left to line the roads and
streams — so long as the winds or the sanitation-salvagers will let the
fringe stand there.

I know of no outdoor organization yet ready to schedule a summer
outing into one of these "thrifty, healthy, esthetically pleasing forests"
so long as the organization can choose anything else. The newly an-

108 Wildlands in Our Civilization

nounced High Mountain management policy seems determined to elimi-
nate the chance to choose.

Ask the Park Service, too, where the de facto wilderness is going.
There is no adequate public voice, yet, in what happens to national park
wilderness. Right in the middle of one of the greatest of all wildernesses in
the system — Katmai National Monument — a road suddenly appears in
the master plan. The public wasn't asked. The public was told. This
would make the wilderness more accessible, and so on, the case went — in
a recitation of most of the usual arguments for getting rid of wilderness.

The place of the de facto wilderness in conservation today is implied
in what the Chief Forester, Edward CHff, stated in an interview recently.
He said that the Pacific Northwest has become a problem region for the
U.S. Forest Service. "There is no place where land management decisions
come harder. . . . There we have areas with extremely high commercial
values for logging mixed up with areas of high scenic value."

How Hard the Decisions?

Many of the hard decisions for the Forest Service in the Pacific North-
west involve the de facto wilderness. They are decisions that do not have
to be made in a hurry and they should not be. They are hard decisions
in proportion to the effort to hurry them. They are decisions that no
man again in America will ever have the chance to unmake — they are
as irrevocable as divine law; but I fear that they are being made with
something less than divine judgment. Most of all, however, the decisions
are hard not because areas of high commercial timber value are mixed
up with areas of high scenic value, but because the remnant of unspoiled
forest is the basic scenic setting in many of these places. The values
surely are not mixed up in any confused sense; they comprise some of
the grandest natural architecture on earth. Within this complex is a
potential national park that would surpass any which now exists. This
could really be something to celebrate in century 21 if such a great new
park were recognized and established in the Northern Cascades — a park
with an unexcelled wilderness heartland, to make here a golden triangle
of national parks that could keep the Puget Sound metropolis scenically
pre-eminent for all our time. Wouldn't it be great to have such a golden
triangle on hand for the next World Conference on National Parks?

To make a superb park of a forest may be a hard agency decision. I
am not sure the public would have trouble deciding — if the public were
given a fair chance.

Wilderness is for people — all the people who are willing to put one
foot after another and go where the trails go, and only the trails. For all
our fixation on wheels, we still know how to walk, and as we value our

DE FACTO WILDERNESS 109

lives and our fullness of living, we had better not forget how to walk and
to keep alive the vigor that is Hfe.

Wilderness is for people, a few at a time, for ages without end. We
know we are short of it already down in the smoggiest State. There is no
more where it came from. Our generation has squandered it without
knowing what damage we have done to all the future.

The de facto wilderness — the undedicated fragment that remains — is
the last place we have to act for what we know in our hearts future Amer-
icans will need as is. It would cost the future too much, and add too
little to our conveniences, for us to decide to spend it all now.

In Conclusion

De facto wilderness is wilderness in fact — a big, wild, unmechanized,
unroaded natural place with no formal border around it. It's just there,
wild and beautiful, and important or unimportant as wilderness to the
Nation's future. We don't know. We just own it.

A great deal of it is already on the way out. Like the 186,000 acres
of streamside sculpture and scenic wonder that will disappear forever
beneath the fluctuating waters soon to rise behind Glen Canyon Dam,
endangering Rainbow Bridge and destroying its setting in violation of
the law, unless we act.

Much more de facto wilderness is on the way out, as the few figures I
have given indicate. Just about every fragment of undedicated national
forest wilderness will go unless you stop its loss. It will meet its destroyer
in the dramatic program to built thousands of new miles of timber-access
roads in the next few years, and obliterating thousands of miles of de
facto wilderness trails in the process. Some of the most beautiful North-
west back country is condemned.

The de facto wilderness is the wilderness that waits in death row. It
has been sentenced by the people who don't like it, by people who wor-
ship an unending material growth, who think that something bigger is
always something better, who would wipe out the last trace of some
natural wonder if that would let a segment of the economy grow the
same old way for a few years more.

The de facto wilderness is being sentenced by its enemies in the admin-
istering pubhc agency. Its friends have not been heard and have been
refused a hearing. Once or twice the sentencing administrator has been
asked whether he thought he had been right in passing sentence. He has
said, yes, he was right. So the sentence stands — and there has been noth-
ing like what we have come to expect, in a democracy, as a fair trial.

The friends of wilderness do not know whether they could prevail on
behalf of their friend. But they do know there should be a day in court.

no Wildlands in Our Civilization

There isn't. It has been refused. And that is wrong. We in our time are
losing a great deal because we let this wrong go on. The future will lose
enormously unless we protect the future's rights today — one of those
rights being the right to know wilderness.

A friend of mine said the other day, a man lives but once and he ought
to be counted at least once. It looks as if now is the time to be counted
for de facto wilderness — our last chance. This is our children's last
chance too.

WILDERNESS AND THE
SELF-INTEREST OF MAN

Bruce M. Kilgore

It seems to me that if a democracy is to work at all, we must assume
that an effective citizen is an informed citizen willing to act. He may
need to act before all the data are in, if — in his own good judgment —
there will be nothing to act about if he waits until all the data are in and
all the comprehensive studies are completed and evaluated and there is
coordination at all levels of government.

It is up to us — as conservationists — to inform the citizen. We have
been discussing ways of doing it for two days. Our toughest job is to
overcome the insulation citizens have to build around themselves if they
are to remain sane in an adman's world of perpetual bombardment.
There is so much information flowing, and crises are so constant, that
specialists can't even keep up with specialists. A chemist would have a
hard time even reading the index to chemical abstracts — about ten pages
of fine print per day! But we must try, and we must also keep ourselves
informed, and not succumb too often to the cliche that we spend too
much time talking to ourselves. We don't spend enough because there
isn't enough time.

What will motivate a citizen to act? In the last analysis, man acts to
preserve himself. He must and he will. It is a built-in instinct. We need
to capitalize upon it and we can. We can show that it is in man's self-
interest to protect wilderness. We had better show it, because it relates
to our preserving ourselves.

In the first place, we can and we must show that wilderness can only
survive in a society designed for peaceful stability. It requires getting

[111

112 Wildlands in Our Civilization

rid of a pet delusion, and a dangerous one. We have developed the habit
of exhorting ourselves to produce more to aid the "vigorous, growing
economy." Yet continuation of such growing production is not possible
on an earth of fixed size — and continuing attempts to produce it are the
basic threat not only to wilderness, but also to peace.

The U.N. is now studying the question, "Can the economy withstand
peace?" The related question — which we have indirectly been asking is:
Can limited resources withstand a constantly increasing expenditure?
The answers to these two questions are obvious — and carefully avoided
by almost everyone. It is in no one's self-interest to avoid them much
longer.

In a second broad area, we must lend all the support we can muster
to a program which will permit our biologists and ecologists — our nat-
ural scientists — to continue their study of life in all its aspects. Dr.
Edward H. Graham of the Soil Conservation Service nearly a year ago
suggested the establishment of a center to further the advanced study
of environment — more specifically, of eco-systems. Such a center would
seek out the best minds in the field of biology and give them a chance to
get on record. It would provide the opportunity to find or to develop
some Einsteins of biology.

They have an important gap to fill. For there is tragically little known
about the speed with which technology is wiping out the world's organic
wealth — and the variety of living organisms built up through the aeons
since life began. In all likelihood, these interrelated living plants and
animals are essential to the continuation of life as we know it. Yet we
continue to tear up the last remnants of habitat, on earth and even
beneath the sea, much as a ne'er-do-well spends his inheritance.

One practical example: At our wilderness conference last spring. Pro-
fessor Robert Stebbins brought to his panel table a small shrub, a plant
he had known as a boy in the Mojave Desert. No one realized it
amounted to anything, and had there been a proposal to run a freeway
through the last remaining habitat of this plant, no one would have
thought much about it. But now it is high on the Department of Agricul-
ture research program — for it has been discovered that the seed has a
liquid wax with a very high melting point and that the wax may be use-
ful in hardening oils used in heavy machinery. It has value as a forage
plant, and the wax can be used to make smokeless candles.

But where are we to keep this type of plant and all the other as yet
undiscovered species — where are we going to allow the organic diversity
the future may need for its very existence? As more and more organisms
are displaced and as population pressures eliminate wild species, we are
simplifying our genetic pool. It may be very important to have these

WILDERNESS AND SELF-INTEREST 113

wild organisms around ; we don't know when we may need some of their
traits. We don't even know that they are not already a vital but undis-
covered link in a chain we now depend on.

Another example — a more personal one if you'll permit me. Some of
you may have read about the discovery in abalone of a certain substance
in its blood which appears to be terrifically effective against staphylo-
coccus infections — infections which because of immunities built up
against antibiotics cannot be treated in any other way.

While this would have been of only passing and general ecological
interest to most people, it was of particular significance to me. Just three
years ago, my older son, then four years old, had to undergo a very deli-
cate operation for an unusual kind of ear infection. The operation was
successful, but within a few weeks there was a flare-up of such a staphy-
lococcus infection. The doctor tried every antibiotic available. Finally,
two months later, he had to operate again — this time having to remove
essentially all the hearing apparatus in the left ear. This is all deeply
impressive to me as evidence of the intangible values of the little known
reservoir of varied forms of life-force we have in the wilderness — both on
the land and just offshore. Had someone isolated and learned to use that
abalone substance just four years ago, instead of last week, my son might
not have lost his hearing.

Other examples are legion of man's continually needing to fall back
on nature for solutions to problems his technology creates. Man has a
unique talent for getting out on a limb and then trying to saw it off
behind him.

What worth wilderness? How much wilderness is needed? Must every
wilderness be a "working wilderness" in an economic sense — in the sense
implied by the cover of the current American Forests magazine?

Can the American Public afford to be satisfied with occasional "wilder-
ness on the rocks" plus a few so-called landscape management areas
where "timber will be managed to produce a thrifty, healthy forest cover
that is esthetically pleasing?" Will such a philosophy save the goat-nut
plants, the abalones, the countless other as yet undiscovered keys to
life which remain in the natural plant and animal associations found in
wilderness and perhaps nowhere else?

What then can the citizen do to further the philosophy of peaceful
stability and to help provide a climate in which the sound ecological
thinking of our biologists can be applied in so many critical areas of
public thought and decision? The members of this panel have already
covered the usual list of ways of reaching a broader audience with infor-
mation which will promote a deeper understanding of what we mean by
wilderness and why it's important. So I'll merely try to recap briefly.

114 Wildlands in Our Civilization

We have to tell our story, as widely as we can, and we must make it
the vital, Hving, dynamic story it is.

With all the accomplishments of man in the space age, with manned
spacecraft circling the earth and all our accomplishments in subduing
the earth to our needs, we need to retain full respect for the life force,
the genetic reservoir that made each of us possible, and all our parts — for
the force that brought about all we hve with on earth. We must keep
that respect — and we must communicate the urgency of keeping it.
With that reverence for life will come a respect for wilderness and as-
surance that enough of it will be preserved to prevent the genetic reser-
voir from being silted in and destroyed.

As I said at the outset, in the last analysis man acts to preserve him-
self. He acts in his own self-interest. It's our job, therefore, to show our
friends, our leaders of thought and of action that all mankind is involved
in these islands of wilderness. Man is tinkering with his environment;
and the absolute requirement of intelligent tinkering, as Aldo Leopold
pointed out, is to save all the parts. Wilderness is the place for their safe-
keeping— the essential place — the necessity.

Our concern for wilderness is not just a quixotic concern. More and
more we're learning the truth of what Thoreau said more than a century
ago: ''In wildness is the preservation of the world."

WILDERNESS AND MODERN MAN

-^John Collier

In 1936, now twenty-six years ago, Robert Marshall intervened with
Secretary Harold L. Ickes to prevent the building of a paved highway
from Clingman's Dome, in the Great Smokies, on southwestward along
ridges and mountain-balds to the Tennessee River. Ickes concurred with
Marshall, and the chief of the National Parks Service ruefully moaned,
"Then my invalid mother cannot visit Thunderhead Bald."

Is Wilderness un-democratic? There are opponents of Wilderness who
so insist.

True it is that Wilderness cannot be penetrated or resided in by each
individual of our hundred and eighty million Americans. Neither can
the Gulf Stream's or Humboldt Current's wildernesses beneath the
ocean's surface, or the high Himalayas or the central Sahara, or the im-
mediate inward vision of Wilham Blake or Dante or Aeschylus. Not
everyone in his own urban person can fall "with his weight of cares upon
the world's great altar-stairs which slope through darkness up to God,"
the altar-stairs of Wilderness and of the Spirit in its heights.

But what is brought back to everyone from Wilderness, and from the
Spirit's aloneness, becomes the possession of the whole human race. Cap-
tain Robert F. Scott and Doctor Edward A. Wilson and their three com-
panions, perishing while the Antarctic night and vast storms came down,
yet leaving a written record which is a consolation and a challenge to all
mankind forever: WilHam Wordsworth, in his childhood and young
manhood enwrapped in the mountains, alone, and producing "Tintern
Abbey" and "The Prelude," and thus deepening the consciousness of
the English-speaking race: W. H. Hudson, alone, under the down-raining
song of the invisible skylarks, and alone on the desert of Patagonia, and
out of those experiences (which had to be solitary, as Hudson insisted),

[ 115

116 Wildlands in Our Civilization

opening a gate into mystery for the whole reading world: such, and
countless other departures, nearly always solitary, into the kindred wil-
derness of Nature and the Soul (solitary departures which "primitive"
men knew were the pre-conditions of maturity, and which The Christ,
The Buddha and Zarathustra knew in the same way) — such departures,
such lonely entries to Wilderness, and communications from out of Wil-
derness, actually have formed the soul of mankind.

Yet I exaggerate, here, what the democracy of Wilderness really does
require. Not a few, but hundreds of thousands of children, adolescents,
and grown-up seekers of the Wild, can penetrate the Wilderness, can
have their life-relationship deepened, without destroying even an atom
of Wilderness. It is solely a matter of internahzed disciphne, and of hu-
mility in presence of the silent utterances of Wilderness. We go into
Wilderness, we come back to the human multitude, and from Wilderness
— the ecological climax, and man's oneness with the climax — we bring
back a democracy not of surface manners and prudent abstentions, but
of life itself in the world's eternity.

At an early date within the New Deal, the National Resources Plan-
ning Board, created by President Roosevelt to report on ways of saving
our vanishing resources, found that in the United States there remained
only eighty-two forest roadless areas and twenty-nine non-forest road-
less areas. On October 25, 1937, I incorporated the Resources Board's
findings into an administrative order. Robert Marshall, until May, 1937,
the Indian Bureau's chief forester, had proposed this administrative
order; he had personally examined, on the ground, each of the sixteen
Indian areas which, by the order, were decreed to remain roadless until
such time as the order might be modified. Secretary Ickes approved my
order. I quote from the order, whose full text may be found in The Liv-
ing Wilderness of December, 1937, and again in The Living Wilderness
of July, 1940. First, I slightly expand upon the explanation of why the
Order was promulgated.

''The Indian folk-Hfe has not shredded away, as have the other folk
cultures of our country, in the face of a commercialism ruthless alike
toward man and the wild creatures and toward the land, the earth. Yet
increasingly, the Indian is encountering the competition and disturb-
ances of the white race and the acquisitive society. The roadless areas
are to save for the Indian some places that are all his own, but also to
save for the Nation some fragments of commercially un-exploited wilder-
ness." (We knew the passion with which a Tewan Pueblo and Taos
Pueblo guarded their sacred wildernesses. We beheved that these were
representative Indians, as truly they were.)

Quoting now textually the operative portion of the order:

WILDERNESS AND MODERN MAN 117

I am establishing the policy that existing areas without roads or settle-
ments on Indian reservations should be preserved in such a condition,
unless the requirements of fire protection, commercial use for the Indi-
ans' benefit, or actual needs of the Indians, clearly demand otherwise.
[Note the above language; it was ignored by the Indian administration
which, twenty years later, sweepingly abolished all except two of the
sixteen roadless areas.]

Under this policy I hereby order that the following shall be established
as roadless areas on Indian reservations :

Name of Area

Reservation

Approximate Acreage

Rainbow Bridge

Navajo

1,590,000

Black Mesa

Navajo

820,000

Grand Canyon

Hualapi

530,000

Painted Desert

Navajo

525,000

Black River

San Carlos-Ft. Apache

325,000

Wind River

Shoshone

220,000

Mountains

Columbia-

Colville

155,000

San Foil Divide

Mt. Thomas

Ft. Apache

130,000

Mission Range

Flathead

125,000

Mesa Verde

ConsoKdated Ute

115,000

Coat Rocks

Yakima

105,000

Mt. Jefferson

Warm Springs

105,000

There are certain areas, not large enough to be designated by the
term roadless, from which it is nevertheless desirable to exclude provi-
sion for motorized transportation. Such tracts the National Resources
Board has designated as wild areas. I hereby order that the following
shall be established as wild areas on Indian Reservations:

Name of Area Reservation Approximate Acreage

Mt. Adams Yakima 48,000

Fort Charlotte Grand Portage 19,000

Grand Portage Grand Portage 1 1 ,000

Cape Flattery Makah 6,000

John Collier, Commissioner

Approved: Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the Interior

The roadless areas were administratively created. Their boundaries
could be changed as ensuing events might indicate. They could be abol-

118 Wildlands in Our Civilization

ished altogether, if this or that tribe, after genuine consideration, might
want them abolished. Across some twenty years, no tribe did want them
abolished. Then, after the middle 1950's, in a sudden rush a number of
the tribal councils did ask that the roadless areas be abolished. The then
administration, without independent inquiry and without argument, at
once abolished all except a negligible two of the roadless areas. The
tribes were assumed to have given consideration to one of the General
Forest Regulations for Indian lands, reading:

''The preservation of the forest in its natural state wherever it is
considered, and the authorized Indian representatives agree, that the
recreational or esthetic value of the forest to the Indians exceeds its
value for the production of forest products."

Value to the Indians — not also to the nation. But how were the tribes
to measure the dollars-and-cents values to themselves or the nation of
roadless areas, as balanced against future commercial exploitation? The
quoted regulation asks the counting of angels balanced on a needle's
point. There is no evidence that any Tribal Council tried to count the
angels on the needle's point. And their rush of action, not toward changes
of roadless boundaries but toward the summary destruction of the road-
less areas, suggests the kinds of influences which are fighting now against
the Wilderness Preservation bill — influences presumptively conveyed
through instructed field agents of the Indian Bureau of the 1950's.

A communication by the then Indian Commissioner, Glenn Emmons,
and a statement to the Sierra Club by one of his district representatives,
justified the Indian Bureau's action thus: The roadless areas order was
violative of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. The Indian Reorgan-
ization Act was procured by Secretary Harold L. Ickes and President
Roosevelt. The history, substance, and spirit of that Act are told else-
where in this book. The Ickes administration lived by the Act's spirit
and its technical requirements. Even in the prolonged, often agonizing
struggle to help save the Indian lands from devastating soil erosion —
successful in the long run — no tribe was ever coerced. The roadless order
was violative neither of the letter nor the spirit of the Indian Reorgani-
zation Act; and the Emmons' administration's invoking of that Act to
justify its hurried destruction of the roadless areas was ignorant if not
insincere. This subject belongs to the present and future, not only to the
past. Hence, I quote in full a letter of mine to George Marshall, dated
July 7, 1962. George Marshall, through the Wilderness Society and the
Sierra Club and otherwise, carries onward the purposes of Robert Mar-
shall.

WILDERNESS AND MODERN MAN 119

Ranches de Taos, New Mexico — July 7, 1962

Dear George Marshall:

I read your July 3 letter, with its several enclosures, when it came yesterday ;
thought about the subject all day; have re-read all the documents today. All this,
with a good deal of distress.

I first answer your question: Were the tribes consulted before the roadless
order was submitted to Secretary Ickes, or afterward? I note from one of your
enclosures that Dan Murphy suggested consulting them. So far as my memory
goes, the tribes were not consulted. I give two probable reasons, one of law
and one of circumstances.

Law. The authority of the Interior Secretary to direct that roads be not built
was clear. Leaving aside the words ''wilderness" and "wild," the Secretary's
order was nothing except a directive that roads be not built within the described
areas. On a showing of fact, the order could be modified at any time. On an
expression of tribal wishes, the order could have been modified at any time. Across
about twenty years, there was no expression of tribal wishes so far as I know.
(And I believe the record would show this.) Evidently the Departmental Solicitor
had no doubt of the Secretary's authority in this particular ; evidently the Solicitor's
office (which was rigorously insistent in all cases that the Indian Reorganization
Act should be lived up to in letter and spirit) found no conflict between the pro-
posed roadless order and the Indian Reoragnization Act. (A hypothetical excep-
tion to the immediately above: had a tribe proposed with its own funds to build
a road, then the Indian Reorganization Act would have been relevant and prob-
ably controlling. No such case arose, I believe; the road funds were public
gratuity funds, and in the absence of specific Congressional directive the Secretary's
authority was plenary). So much for the law.

Circumstances. The order which Bob Marshall had formulated was meant, in
part, as a commencement of the Wilderness policy broadly conceived. This was
understood by Bill Zimmerman and by me. Therefore we ought to have done what
Dan Murphy suggested; we ought to have taken the subject to each of the
several tribes. The consent of a tribal council would not have been binding on
a successor council; but the consent would have had a persuasive value; and
the educational effort, by the Indian Bureau (education in the whole Wilderness
concept and purpose) would have been all to the good. Why didn't we do this
work? A thing not technically obligatory would have been philosophically, etc.,
of value.

My answer is: In 1936, '37 and afterward, we literally were drowned, hemmed-in,
sometimes crushed, by hundreds of jobs which were technically necessary and not
merely desirable. More than 200 Indian reservations, plus Alaska, plus the busi-
nesses of tribal council and corporations, but above all, plus Congress, made every
day, every week, a heavy chore and often (with Congress) a battleground. Bob
Marshall had transferred to the Forest Service; Dan Murphy had the whole of
the Indian C.C.C. on his hands; the Soil Conservation Service was being lifted
by Roosevelt out from Interior into Agriculture; and we were acting under a
directive from Roosevelt to assemble and justify (to Congress) a request for large,
very large, additions to the land-acquisition and credit appropriations. (An ex-
ample: in those years, '33 through '37, I made seventeen journeys from Washing-
ton to the Navajo on soil conservation matters, meeting with the Tribal Council
and mass gatherings of the Navajos. We were determined that on the Navajo as
on the other reservations, the sacrifices and new efforts for soil conservation should
be done by the tribes without coercion, as decisions and actions of their own. They
were done that way.) Inasmuch as there was no technical necessity of "selling"
the roadless order to the tribes, but only an educational desideratum; and in-
asmuch as the roadless order could be modified whenever or if ever the facts so
indicated: Well, in brief, we did not do what Dan Murphy suggested. In the hind-

120 Wildlands in Our Civilization

sight of the whole Wilderness struggle, it would have been better if we had done
what we did not do. Contemporaneously, we simply could not do it; and as stated
under "Law" above, there was no legal or technical obligation in the matter.

Commenting, now, on Commissioner Emmons' letter to you, and Don Foster's
address to the Wilderness Conference of March 26, 1957. When^ commencing I
believe with the Navajo Council, some of the tribes started objecting to the road-
less order, the then Indian Bureau, instead of arguing with them, rushed into
doing what they wanted or thought they wanted. The Bureau's pious remarks
about its devotion to Wilderness were just public relations remarks; and its treat-
ing of the roadless order as being a violation of the Indian Reorganization Act
was either ignorant or merely insincere. Right there in Don Foster's jurisdiction,
the Klamath timber vastness, which he boasts of, was in process of being totally
wrecked through an act of Congress with which the then Interior Department had
concurred. The attempted break-up of tribal life was in full swing; the Indian
and Eskimo reservations which Ickes had created in Alaska were under attack by
the Territory and in Congress — an attack which the Eisenhower Administration
did nothing to resist. But enough of Emmons', etc. apologias.

All the above tells nothing about what to do to re-create Indian roadless and,
ultimately, wilderness areas. You know with what determination and passion a
Tewan Pueblo and Taos Pueblo worked or are working to conserve their wilder-
ness areas. Anthropological studies, and careful consultations with tribal leaders
(who may or may not be members of tribal councils), plus your suggestion of
compensation to the tribes for cash values real or imaginary which they might
surrender, might get results. I think they would; but a lot of work would be
necessary. Meantime, the present Administration has complete authority to re-
store, or establish anew, roadless areas.

I am returning Don Foster's statement. Shall keep the other documents unless
you want them returned. Item: This letter is not confidential, though I am not
sending a copy to anyone.

With all good wishes.
As ever,

John Collier, Sr.

Robert Marshall

In Indian Service, and later in the Forest Service, and in his many
extra-official works, Robert Marshall moved in his actions and thinking
between two poles of striving and of value which are universal in their
implications. One pole was the wilderness. The other was modernity —
Marshall welcomed the scientific age, the technological age, and the
worldwide and also intimate clashes and changes which science and tech-
nology have brought. He was gladly a part of the irreversible onward
plunge of the modern world. He beheved that the plunge was an onward
one even now — that the process of history had not turned permanently
atavistic. Therefore Robert Marshall was also a leader in the struggle
for civil liberties. The Robert Marshall Civil Liberties Fund, and the
Wilderness Society, carry his work ahead in a difficult time.

Robert Marshall died in November, 1939, at 38 years of age. He had
known through the previous years that a heart lesion might bring death
at any hour. Undeterred, he journeyed on foot, often unaccompanied,
across tens of thousands of miles of wilderness land, in Alaska and from
the east to the west coast of the United States. Readers of his classic

WILDERNESS AND MODERN MAN 121

book Arctic Wilderness, published in 1956 under the editorship of
George Marshall, will realize the immensity of his wilderness adventures,
continued until a few months before he died.

We were together, at the Cosmos Club in Washington, the night when
he died. He was returning to New York by train, thence to go after a day
or two to Asheville, and thence to walk down the Appalachian range as
far as the Unakas. I described the Tusquittee mountain range to him.
The three Tusquittee Balds, and the precipitous height reaching from
these to County Corners, had been known to me, nearly forty years be-
fore, as a consummate wilderness; and even in 1939, no highway ap-
proached them, no forest fire had reached them, no rock had been
blasted, and not even a single log cabin had been built. From their
heights, at dawn, hundreds of mountain coves, far away into Georgia
and far northward into the Great Smoky Mountains, glimmered under
the night fogs. I asked Robert Marshall to walk to the Tusquittees, and
to determine whether they might not be made permanently a roadless
and "wild" area within the national forest. This he undertook to do. And
that same night, in transit to New York, he passed to the endless sleep.

He who had walked seventy miles and been fresh at the end of it; who
physically as well as intellectually and socially lived the athletic life;
who had so much more to do, so much longer to live ; and then the sudden
word of his death. From happy brightness at once to the incomparable
silence — to the woods of the universe. Within my own experience, there
has been none other, except Ward Shepard (the ecologist, humanitarian,
and social philosopher, who died in 1959), who has equalled Robert
Marshall in the greatness of "gay science." And none other has quite re-
placed him in the endless journey to the heart of Wilderness and to the
heart of man's social world.

I ought not to cease from Robert Marshall without a few words con-
cerning his father and his brothers. Louis Marshall, a great man, trans-
mitted greatness to his three sons. See Louis Marshall, Champion of
Liberty: Selected Papers and Addresses, edited by Charles Reznikoff
and published by the Jewish Pubhcations Society of America, Phila-
delphia, 1957. Great as a lawyer, as a leader of the Jewish people, as a
defender of all liberties and minorities, Louis Marshall also (near the
very end of his life) greatly served the Indians. He served in laborious,
technical ways ; he held the powers of attorney of the Middle Rio Grande
Pueblos, and verbally argued and then briefed their case (in the Middle
Rio Grande Conservancy District matters) before the Indian Bureau
and the Secretary of the Interior. His arguments were carried to the
Senate floor in a prolonged and impassioned plea by Robert M. La
Follette, Junior. Louis Marshall prevailed. Being with him in New
York and Washington through his days of complete application (entirely

122 Wildlands in Our Civilization

volunteered) to the Indians' cause, was an intellectual lesson to myself,
and a moral exaltation.

There were three sons. One was Bob Marshall. One is James Marshall,
active in the Association on American Indian Affairs, the president for
many years of the New York City Board of Education, a lawyer active
in various civil liberty cases, a potent worker in the American Jewish
Committee, an author and a professor, and a governing member in The
Wilderness Society. The other son is George Marshall, economist, civil
libertarian and conservationist; George Marshall, managing editor and,
later, consulting editor, of The Living Wilderness, member of The Wil-
derness Society Council, and member of the executive committee and
publications committee of the Sierra Club. With George Marshall, it is
to my benefit to be in almost daily correspondence now.

These few facts about the Marshalls, father and sons, cannot convey
what I would wish to convey: the image of the greatness, the universal
responsiveness and responsibility, of the Jew, the flame which burns on
"age after age, 'til time shall be no more." Others of the Jews are named
in this book: Felix S. Cohen, Nathan R. Margold, Theodore Haas, Fred
M. Stein, Howard S. Gans, Max L. Rosenberg, Eliahu Elath, an Israeli
Ambassador, Charles de Y. Elkus. There are others not named here.
Without these many, the Indian New Deal would not have been born;
the Pueblos might not have survived; and Wilderness would not have
been brought to the center of American consciousness.

Wilderness Protective Legislation

The Wilderness Protective Legislation, enacted by the Senate after a
five-year struggle (a struggle led to interim conclusion within the Senate
by Senator Anderson of New Mexico), now languishes in the House.
Every conservation body in the Nation supports this bill. The opposition
and its stated and un-stated reasons are described below. The bill already
(in the Senate) has been weakened. There is danger that if enacted in
the House, the bill may prove to be only a ghost of its original self.

What is the Wilderness Bill? There exist administratively established
wildernesses, whose acreage is slightly above two per cent of the Nation's
acreage. Their commercial yield, if exploited to their total devastation,
would be not two per cent but less than a thousandth of one per cent
of the commercial yield of the whole national domain. They are moun-
tains above the tree-levels, deserts, swamplands, and in part, inside the
National Parks, forest land. Being administratively established, they
could become administratively dis-established, as the Indian roadless
areas have been. The Wilderness Bill would, after varying terms of
years, and in the absence of specific Congressional vetoes, shift the ad-
ministrative wildernesses into statutory wildernesses.

WILDERNESS AND MODERN MAN 123

The bill is accurately described above. All details concerning it, the
record of its stormy passage toward possible nothingness, along with un-
impassioned reporting of its oppositions, can be found in the quarterly
journal The Living Wilderness, published at 2144 P Street, N.W., Wash-
ington, D.C. This journal through the years has published, also, numer-
ous important essays, and photographs, of "knock-out" beauty, of the
wildernesses.

I now describe the opposition to the Wilderness Bill and to all wilder-
ness, along with its reasons stated and un-stated; and then the meaning
of wilderness as seen by thinkers from Thomas Henry Huxley to Robert
Marshall and the ecologists of today, and lovers of wilderness such as
Mr. Justice Douglas and the psychologist Gardner Murphy.

After the tremendous pressures behind the Wilderness Bill, indicated by the
hearings of 1957 [on the then Wilderness Bill, S. 1176, June 19 and 20, 1957] be-
came evident, the resource users of the West became very much aware that they
had a fight on their hands. When the hearings on S. 4028 [The then Wilderness
Bill] were scheduled in 1958, Radford Hall, the late executive secretary of the
American National, and Bill Hagenstein, executive vice-president of the Western
Forestry Association, set up a meeting of the natural resource users to plan strategy
to combat this dangerous legislation.

This group met in Denver in October, 1958, and every natural resource using
interest in the West was represented. The group was unanimously united in its op-
position to the legislation, and agreed to cooperate in disseminating information
to the grass roots concerning it.

The above, from the American Cattle Producer, The misinformation
has been strenuously disseminated. Misrepresentation of the bill's con-
tents, of its intentions and effects, has been poured forth at the subse-
quent hearings, and will be in the future.

As explained above, a meaningful economic motive for fighting against
the Wilderness Bill does not exist. Yet with unanimity (so far as a
search of the record reveals), the lumbering, grazing, mining, and com-
mercial recreation interests have ravened against the bill since 1946.
(An exception to sentence one of this paragraph: With the commercial
recreation interests, a real economic motive does exist; with these, and
with the real-estate speculating interests. Witness the abominations of
commercialized desolation now far advanced on the Sandia Mountains,
above Albuquerque; the shameful ignominy intended for Point Reyes.
But Congress has now acted to make a national park of Point Reyes — at
heavy cost because the land speculators had anticipated Congress.

At one level, the answer is a simple one. The resisting interests — to
repeat, the lumbering, grazing, mining, and commercial recreation inter-
ests— are governed by a money-profit motive which has no bounds. To
their mode of perceiving human affairs. Wilderness is an affront, a child-
ish if not blasphemous protest against their own value system. As much
can be said regarding conservation (both Nature and Life conservation) ;

124 Wildlands in Our Civilization

the ideology of our profit-pursuing age is hostile to conservation, not
only to Wilderness. But there is a difference. Total soil destruction, total
timber destruction, total pollution of waters and of atmosphere — such
total destruction entails the destruction of the profit-motive itself, and
invites interferences by the Nation, by the Government, by Society.

But Wilderness is different. The profit-motive finds no use in Wilder-
ness; and Wilderness can perish utterly in its remote silences, without
bringing the profit-seeking temple down in ruin on men's heads. Wilder-
ness therefore, as a symbol of all in the human aspiration and caring
which holds itself out from the profit-pursuing imperative, can sajely
be crushed down. One after another of the absolutisms of profit-pursuit
has been somewhat tamed, somewhat restrained, during the century be-
hind us. There remains Wilderness, as a fact and an aspiration: Wilder-
ness, which by its very definition says to the money-profit motive: You
shall not enter here. Therefore, no W^ilderness!

Item: the Multiple-Sustained- Yield Act of a time contemporary with
the Wilderness Bill's bafflement. This Act's history (it was enacted in
June, 1960) contrasts with the road-blocked history of the Wilderness
bill. Fifty members of Congress vied with each other in introducing the
Multiple-Use bill and minor variants of it. It became law through unani-
mous consent. As introduced "at the insistence of commercial lumbering
interests" (House Committee on Agriculture), the bill would have been
fatal to Wilderness and menacing to National Parks. Amended in Com-
mittee, the bill was self-declared not to be a substitute for the Wilder-
ness and not a directive to encroach on the National Parks. Thus
amended, the Multiple-Use Act does nothing except to reiterate the na-
tional forests policies as laid down by Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford
Pinchot fifty-five years ago, and leaves with the national Forest Service
the discretion as to what multiple uses shall apply to what bodies of land
under its jurisdiction. However, in Mr. Justice Douglas' words, in his
My Wilderness, "Multiple use in practical operation means that every
canyon is usually put to as many uses as possible — lumber operations,
roads, campsites, shelters, toilets, fireplaces, parking lots, and so on."

What Is Wilderness?

Leaving to one side the practically illusory hungers of the profit-
motive, and its senseless alarms, there are four levels at which Wilder-
ness can be viewed.

1. Wilderness is the domain of tooth and claw: There is no friendh-
ness within Wilderness and can be no friendliness between it and man.
To quote one of the great biologists of the pre-ecological age, Thomas
H. Huxley, in his 1888 publication Struggle for Existence and Its Bear-
ing Upon Man.

WILDERNESS AND MODERN MAN 125

^'From the point of view of the moraHst, the animal world" (and the
plant world, Huxley would have added) ''is on about the same level as
a gladiator's show. The creatures are fairly well treated, and set to
fight; whereby the strongest, the swiftest, and the cunningest live to
fight another day. The spectator has no need to turn his thumb down,
as no quarter is given." Huxley continues, this time concerning "primi-
tive" men: "Life was a continuous free fight, and beyond the limited
and temporary relations of the family, the Hobbesian war of each against
all was the normal state of existence." Modern "moral" man, Huxley
believed, can have no relationship of sympathy with Hobbesian ancient
man, and no relation other than a coldly exploitative one with forest and
field, with wolves or squirrels or bears, or the winged ones, or even the
humus and waters of the world. With bloodthirsty Wilderness and blood-
thirsty primeval man, "moral" man has nothing to do, esthetically or
ethically. Anachronistically, Lord Bertrand Russell appears to hold to
the Huxleyan view even today.

2. At the second level is Prince P. Kropotkin^s book, Mutual Aid,
published in 1902. Surveying the whole record of man as man, Kropotkin
did more than merely to challenge the Huxleyan "social Darwinism";
he permanently demolished it. The view of intraspeciftc mutual raven-
ousness had become elaborated into a social and political philosophy
which insisted that within mankind the Huxleyan image of an ever-
lasting gladiatorial combat was the true image. Challenging this image,
Kropotkin brought to bear an immense range of precise facts. He uti-
lized, more for its suggestiveness than for its scientific conclusiveness,
data from the avian, insect, and mammalian worlds; but his monumental
constructions were drawn from "savage" and "barbarian" human life,
from the guilds and free cities of the Middle Ages, and from the life of
poor men of his own day. The practical good sense of men in groups, he
demonstrated, reinforced by universal insistencies of the human con-
sciousness (a human consciousness wider and deeper than Sigmund
Freud was dreaming of), had made of mutual aid "the leading light of
man" since man was born.

Mutual Aid after fifty years "stands up." No research in the twentieth
century has out-dated it. Rather, I suggest, no research or experience
has out-dated Kropotkin. This, because his other great book. Memoirs
of a Revolutionist, unveils as reahstically as any book of 1900 could
have done the oppositions against mutual aid which human life has
engendered. Thus, his fundamental criticism of the prison system of the
Europe of then and now and the America of then and now, is completely
relevant, treating of prisons as they were and are, but reaching beneath
the prison institution to the concept of punishment. The hideous racisms
of Nazism, of South Africa, of parts of present North America, post-

126 Wildlands in Our Civilization

dated Kropotkin; and they reveal foes to mutual aid more darkly in-
trenched in the human soul than the Inquisition; seventeenth century
French absolutism and ultimately aberrant French Revolution; and
modern prison systems in Europe and the Americas (Kropotkin knew
and foresaw them) revealed. Yet Kropotkin's ruling thought reaches
even to the darkest deeps; and Gandhi, Michael Scott, Martin Luther
King, and the non-violent resisters of the "cold war" are the Kropotkins
of our own era. Kropotkin himself, going back to Russia in his old age
after the 1917 revolution, and witnessing there the cold ferocities which
were to be continued through the Stalin epoch, is stated to have refused
to permit Lenin to visit him.

Thus, Mutual Aid remains as a "voice above the conquer'd years,"
years not physically conquered as yet but conquering in the souls of
men. As an essay on Liberty it is broader-based than John Stuart Mill's
classical Essay on Liberty, and even more eloquent, because through it
the voice of man speaks from very long ages gone, and ages yet to be if
there is to be any human age.

3. The third level for viewing Wilderness is the biological ecological
level. Ecologically understood, our planet itself, with its atmosphere,
waters, and soils, and all of its animate life, is one single event. The
event, in its multitudes, complexities and interdependencies, in its un-
exhausted potentials and its inexhaustible ranges of liberty far exceeds
the conceptual reach of any age prior to our own, and far exceeds our
own age's conceptual and emotional reach; though it does not exceed
our own age's contraecological power to destroy. To quote J. Arthur
Thompson (in his volume Life, and other writings) : "The hosts of living
organisms are not isolated creatures; for every thread of life is inter-
twined with others in a complex web. . . . Just as there is a correlation
of organs in the body, so there is a correlation of organisms in the world
of life. ... So we begin to get a glimpse of a vast self-regulating organ-
ization."

Paul B. Sears, a leader among American ecologists and conservation-
ists, states a now-accepted view of the "ecological climax": "Within
each province (Hfe, earth, water, air), all the diversity of living com-
munities represents a series of changes or stages toward an ideal limit,
the Hmit of a stabilized climax of fauna and flora." This aeonian self-
propulsion of not one but many thousands of inter-related earth-water-
floral-faunal ecological communities, toward "ideal limits of stabilized
climax," can be explained, in one and another isolated detail, by mech-
anistic neo-Darwinism; but not this way did ancient man, who perceived
the ecological climax, try to explain it; nor does the immortal child in
man try this way ; nor do the poets of whatever epoch, nor the biological

WILDERNESS AND MODERN MAN 127

philosophers from Aristotle through Gustav Fechner and Claude Bernard
and A. N. Whitehead, to our immediate contemporaries R. S. LilHe and
E. S. Russell. So, to our fourth level for viewing Wilderness.

4. The achieved "ecological climax" is the Wilderness. Cosmical pur-
pose, the billion-years-continuing striving of the cosmical Artist, the
God within Nature, has made the Wilderness, and has made that in the
human being which longs for Wilderness. There is no room in this chapter
for an argument about cosmical-biological directiveness or purposive-
ness; but the whole of this book points toward that which mankind
perceives in nature — the deepest and highest, if the most undemonstrable
heart of mankind's own purpose. As for what it is that we humans know
from birth, and know anew in spiritual maturity, I quote from Gardner
Murphy in Human Potentialities, pubHshed in 1957. A few sentences
only, from Murphy's chapter, "Boundaries Between Person and World":

We shall get further in the long run by stating our program in tentative but
positive terms: that man, being of the stuff of which the universe is made, what-
ever that stuff may ultimately prove to be, may have deep affinities with it, deep
resonance to it, deep isomorphism with it. . . . To understand man more fully is,
therefore, to understand more of the nature of the cosmos, and vice versa. It is
likely (as Edith Cobb so brilliantly shows in her forthcoming studies) that the
tiny child, long before he can verbalize, resonates to cosmic patterns with a deep
sense that this is basically he himself; long before there is a socially defined self
he senses a rhythm, a dynamic pattern in the world which he also senses in an
isomorphic form within himself. To the rhythm^s and cadences of sound about him,
he makes a re-echoing response through his own limbs and his own vocalizations,
not through an instinct of imitation, but because he is of the same stuff as the
world. . . .

Our thesis would be that there are many possible natures within man, from
which he must freely choose. . . . The potentials of self-fulfillments lie scattered
there beyond the horizon ; and man, with all the wisdom which he can marshall,
must strive to define them — and then to choose among them.

Murphy's own definition, and his own choice, is evident in the writings
and the scientific explorations of this greatest of the psychologists since
William James: a meaningful universe, which is known by the human
being in his deeps, and which knows the human being from within its
own deeps.

The ''ecological climax" contains the human climax within itself.
Such is the most ancient utterance of the silent Wilderness to present
man, as it was to ancient man. Such is Wilderness, which our own genera-
tion must choose to keep or to destroy forever.

Summaries of the proceedings of the first three biennial
Wilderness Conferences were published in mimeographed
form by the Sierra Club, while those of the Fourth and
Fifth Biennial Conferences appeared as printed pam-
phlets under the same sponsorship. In addition, the Fifth
Biennial Wilderness Conference was fully reported in the
SIERRA CLUB BULLETIN, Junc 1957, undcr the title wild-
lands IN OUR civilization, the theme both of that Con-
ference and of the present volume.

II

SUMMARIES OF THE PROCEEDINGS
OF THE FIRST FIVE BIENNIAL
WILDERNESS CONFERENCES

The First Conference,
APRIL 8-9, 1949

The Second Conference,
MARCH 30-31, 1951

The Third Conference,
MAY 15-16, 1953

The Fourth Conference,
MARCH 18-19, 1955

The Fifth Conference,
MARCH 15-16, 1957

THE FIRST BIENNIAL
WILDERNESS CONFERENCE,
April 8-9, 1949

High-Country Meadows

Discussion Chairman: P. A. Thompson, Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service
Introductory Speaker: Lowell Sumner, Biologist, National Park Service

Mr. Sumner pointed out that in mountain meadows the trend has been toward
destruction for some seventy years. Some have vanished; others will follow un-
less we do something to save them.

Three factors contribute to meadow destruction: cattle, surplus Government and
packers' stock, and overuse by visitors. The first two factors are either local or
are already being taken care of. The third factor is the most pressing because it is
of increasing importance, under present population trends (by 1990, many statis-
ticians believe we shall have three times the present population in California) and
with the increasing popularity of the mountains. This trend requires us to take
decisive steps now against further meadow destruction.

Meadows may be classified as the short-hair type above tree line, and the wet
meadows of the lower forested belt. The latter are scarcer and more vulnerable.
They are essentially basins of moist sand. Many of them are lakes that have silted
up. The lake is still there below the level of the sand. They are very old and, if
undisturbed, they change only with geological slowness. Their continued existence
depends on maintenance of the water table at its present level, thus favoring grass
but preventing encroachment by forest trees. Anything that causes lowering of
the water table damages the meadow. If trampling (as in severe overgrazing) opens
the outlet, so that the underground lake is drained, grass dies out and tree seedlings
become established. Climatic fluctuations do not harm undamaged meadows, but
those that are half-drained cannot withstand droughts or floods.

Once soil and humus are gone there is little that can be done. The best we can
do is stop the loss. In most of the damaged meadows the dropping water table can
be halted at the present level. The real problem is how to bring meadows back
without having to stop all grazing.

One way would be better tourist distribution. At present a few routes are heavily
used year after year, not necessarily because they are most scenic but because that
was where the old stock trails were established. To take some of the load off the
badly beaten places will require construction of new trails or reopening of old ones,
and wise use of available meadows. Groups like the Sierra Club and the High Sierra
Packers' Association may be able to foster better distribution, allowing overused
meadows to recover. A second suggestion is to limit the stay of large parties in
certain widely spaced small meadows. Another method is to spare such meadows
by packing in hay. The Sierra Club has already done this. Still another suggestion
130]

FIRST CONFERENCE 131

is to require registration with the Forest or Park service in advance of the pro-
posed trip for all parties using twenty-five head of stock or more. These parties
can then be routed to avoid excessive use of any one meadow. But regulation of
numbers and length of stay should be based on the number of horse-nights of
forage available in each meadow. Better utilization of smaller adjacent meadows
may be brought about by construction of trail bars and drift fences.

Clearing meadows of brush and trees has often been advocated. This is not the
primary problem; brush removal alone may merely expose the soil to more
rapid wash and wind erosion. The water table must be restored first. When this
is done invading trees and brush die out and disappear because the ground is
too wet for them. If we can regulate the grazing and raise the water table we may
not have to bother with removing trees.

Mr. Thompson then added his comments. The high-country meadows are the
heart of high-country recreation, but are succumbing to the influences the recrea-
tionist brings with him. We must either check the damage or lose the meadows.
Grazing is perhaps the most serious factor, although all camp-making activities
contribute to damage. To start the discussion he suggested that we may have to
stop all grazing, and that supplies may have to be flown in — should we also pipe
in water, build campsites off the meadows, put up shelters for storing supplies?

A spokesman for the Packers' Association said. "There is less commercial stock
in the mountains now than there was in 1936." He then gave, as the packers'
recommendations, three points that were subsequently incorporated in the summary
report.

In the general discussion the following additional points were made:

Privately owned and operated stock and that of independent packers adds to
the grazing burden, particularly in hunting season; it, too, should be subject to
regulation, say Packers' Association members. They deplore the practice of some
hunters, who hire men to go in and hold a particularly desirable campsite in ad-
vance of the opening of hunting season.

Packing in hay carries certain hazards. We may introduce foreign weed seeds
into the meadows, to their detriment (as thistles were introduced into Yosemite
Valley). The Sierra Club's hay-packing experiment was carefully safeguarded by
feeding the hay on dry gravel, where weeds could not get a start. If hay were
dropped from airplanes, weed seeds would probably be widely scattered.

Hope was expressed that we could keep the High Sierra Wilderness free of air-
planes, except as required for fire control.

Though development of new routes might alleviate the present overuse, would
it lead eventually to deterioration of the whole wilderness?

The Forest Service is well on the way to eliminating all sheep and cattle grazing
from the high country in California. Some meadow-restoration projects have had
gratifying results; gully plugs check further dropping of water tables and reduce
erosion, and in some places successful and unobtrusive small-scale irrigation has
been achieved by diverting water into old channels.

Trails in the High Country

Discussion Chairman: Ray Buckman, Director, High Sierra Packers' Association
Introductory Speaker: Walter A. Starr, Editor of Guide to the John Muir Trail

Mr. Starr reviewed the history of trail-building in the Sierra, beginning with the
Indians' trails across the passes, continuing with those by which miners and stock-
men penetrated the Sierra from both west and east. On all these, accessibility and
the availability of feed determined the routes. Very little work would be needed
to reopen some of these old routes; we do not need high-standard trails in the

132 Wildlands in Our Civilization

high mountain wilderness area. Mr. Starr told of early exploration and surveys
by Sierra Club members and of the visualization and construction of the John
Muir Trail.

The principal problem of trail maintenance is obtaining funds. For the last ten
years neither government service has had more than a fraction of the money
needed for trail maintenance. The trails have been badly neglected in consequence;
they are in worse condition today than in the days of the cattlemen. Another prob-
lem is effective organization. Often trail crews are found to be accomplishing very
little. They need supervision by someone who knows trail construction.

Trail relocation should be studied. Many trails seem to have been made in a
haphazard way; they should go around meadows rather than through them, and
should cross or climb steep slopes in such a way that they are not subject to nor
the cause of excessive erosion.

Problems of trail location and construction include many of the problems on the
conference agenda. Protection of high mountain meadows and keeping the wilder-
ness wild are among many factors inextricably related to the trails that provide
access and channel the flow of tourist traffic.

As use increases, increased regulation and wise administration become impera-
tive, if we are to preserve the wilderness. The mountains are already reasonably
accessible; perhaps we ought not to build many more trails. Should we not assure
future generations the satisfying and beneficial experience of finding ways
through where no trails exist?

In the discussion. Regional Director Tomlinson reported improvement in the
National Park Service budget for trails; this year's appropriation is to be re-
ceived in a lump sum for allocation where the need is greatest. Yosemite and Se-
quoia and Kings Canyon National parks will have twice as much money for trails
as they had last year. Mr. Thompson, however, reported reduced funds for the
Forest Service trails, and a directive to charge fees for recreational use of the
forests.

Superintendent Scoyen, of Sequoia-Kings Canyon, exhibited a large map of the
area on which were indicated trails, points of entrance to the wilderness area, head-
quarters of permitted packers, and proposed new trails intended to spread the
use. He cited specific examples in which new access trails could increase pasturage
tremendously. He believes that with some spreading out of the grazing load, and
with a limitation on packers' permits, actual use of the back country can be
effectively regulated. While agreeing with Mr. Starr's point that trails should not
be built to too high standards, he urged that the standards be high enough to be
economical, so that the trails will not require constant maintenance work.

Some discussion of the Taboose Pass trail brought out the point that cooperative
project here (between Forest Service and Park Service) could relieve overuse of
the Kearsarge Pass area.

It was pointed out that at least one Forest Supervisor had succeeded in stretch-
ing meager trail funds by employing packers to do the most needed work while
on the site, rather than sending special trail crews long distances for small jobs. It
was further pointed out that larger parties can do a good deal of clearing and
minor repair as they travel through the mountains.

Education for Wilderness Travelers

Discussion Chairman: John H. Baker, National Audubon Society
Introductory Speaker: Carl P. Russell, Superintendent, Yosemite National Park

Dr. Russell indicated that those who use the wilderness as a vacation resource
may be divided into two groups: those who are real wilderness lovers (and there-

FIRST CONFERENCE 133

fore conservationists), and those who wish to do their wilderness adventuring in
a well cushioned chair attached to some form of internal combustion engine (Neu-
berger, Harper's, October 1948). The latter are far more numerous, and it is of
them that we need to think. People come swarming into the parks and forests
who do not have our outlook on wilderness.

What are we going to do about them? This is our educational problem. Some of
the means by which it can be met, and is being met, are as follows:

The packer, who escorts these people into the wilderness and is in contact with
them for perhaps days at a time, has an especially favorable opportunity and a
responsibility for their indoctrination. The Sierra Club, as one example, absorbs
many of this group into its membership and eventually makes conservationists of
them. The administrator has them on his hands in tremendous numbers — and he
must accept them as seekers for beauty, and educate them as well as he can.

Education in wilderness appreciation goes back to John Muir. Its beginnings, on
an organized basis, were in the Nature Guide movement, started in the early
'twenties. That work is a part of National Park Service interpretive activities. By
1940 there were 750 park naturalists throughout the United States (although only
60 of them were in the National Park Service group), and there must be more
now. Such organizations as the National Audubon Society, with its nature camps
for the training of teachers, are making an important contribution to the apprecia-
tion of nature and of wilderness.

Education in wilderness use is something else. The issuance of campfire permits
offers other opportunities for making actual contact with people who will use the
back country. Either at Park Headquarters or at the District Ranger's office in the
field, the visitor can be advised on the back-country campsites that are desirable,
convenient and safe, and given an information sheet. Added to the information is
the suggestion, "If you have enjoyed camping at this scenic spot, we invite you
to contribute to the preservation of its natural beauty."

Supervision of recreational grazing in the high country affords another very im-
portant educational opportunity, through which the district ranger can make per-
sonal on-the-spot contacts with a great number of users.

Distribution of printed trail guides — which presumably travel with the users and
then are carried home to others — is highly desirable, but no park funds are avail-
able at present for printing interpretive material.

Registration of climbers is another opportunity for personal contact and inter-
pretation (probably as much education is carried on by rangers as by the inter-
pretive staff) .

Education in the parks upholds the philosophy that preservation takes prece-
dence over use. National Park Service personnel is insufficient, however, to provide
the needed services in education and protection.

In the discussion the following points were brought out:

All of us have a responsibility in providing a broad concept of conservation for
those who go with us into the back country. It is essential to our national life and
strength that we preserve our soil and water and plant and animal life in balance.
Man is inescapably a part of this biological complex.

The essence of the problem is to make the public more keenly aware of the
necessity for protecting our resources against jfire, overuse, and thoughtless abuse.

Two or three decades ago youth groups were taught how to blaze trails through
the wilderness. Today the wilderness is too scarce to permit that, and we must seek
other programs that not only satisfy the pioneer spirit but also work for pro-
tection of the remaining wilderness.

The packers are in a particularly favorable position to inculcate in their clients
sound views and practices — fire control, keeping camps clean, intelligent use of
fish and game resources.

Education in wilderness protection must be begun early, in the schools or in
youth organizations. The Forest Service considers use of its areas for youth camps
among the most important. These camps provide opportunity for education at the
most advantageous age level — the middle-aged or even the young man is less sus-

134 Wildlands in Our Civilization

ceptible to conservation education than the school-age youngster. Cooperation
with schools is of extreme importance.

Programs for educating teachers (as in certain "Conservation Workshops" given
as summer-session courses with college credit) or for training interpreters (as in
the Yosemite Field School) are of great value.

The National Council on Conservation Education (Dr. John W. Scott, Chair-
man, and William Voigt, Jr., Secretary), is making a study of the field and should
be informed of action taken here.

Wildlife Management Affecting Wilderness Areas

Discussion Chairman: Major O. A. Tomlinson, Regional Director, National
Park Service

Introductory Speaker: F. P. Cronemiller, Chief, Division of Wildlife Manage-
ment, United States Forest Service, Region 5

Mr. Cronemiller gave brief accounts of the various forms of wildlife characteris-
tic of the High Sierra Wilderness, telling something of their habits and their
history, and emphasizing that hunting and trapping of these animals affect the wil-
derness only as they affect the general population density of these groups, but
discussing to some extent the interrelationships between hunting and trapping, pred-
ator control, and habitat changes. He discussed the pine marten, the fisher, the wol-
verine; the deer, the bighorn sheep; the grouse; and fish. Stating that probably
90 percent of wilderness travelers are attracted to the wilderness areas by fishing —
or at least interest in it — he discussed fish planting as a management problem. He
pointed out, however, that in wilderness areas not much planting can be done,
and at least 75 percent of the trout there must come from natural reproduction.
He pointed out that our fish habitat is imperfect — "Nature didn't build this coun-
try right" — and that our peculiar climate, with all the precipitation in the winter,
does not assure a favorable environment for fish survival. He then called upon
William A. Dill, Biologist for the Division of Fish and Game, to discuss methods
that might be used for improving natural fishing in our wilderness areas.

Mr. Dill said that in the past, management had consisted almost entirely of fish
planting (in which the packers have given considerable cooperation). Much of the
Sierra was barren of fish until planting was begun. Interest is now swinging
toward habitat improvement, which would increase natural reproduction. In the
high granite country, streams dry up in the late summer and fall. In a number of
areas check dams have been built to store water for release during the dry season,
and the Division is studying the results with interest. Division policy could prob-
ably be expressed as opposition to the construction of high dams unless there is
great intensity of fishing, and a wish to have all dams as natural and compatible
with the environment as possible; he assured the group that there is no "wish to
rush into a program of check-dam development in wilderness areas as long as
fishing intensity remains low." Regulation of fishing intensity in the high country
is of growing importance. The packer has probably the most important role in
spreading the public out over large areas so as to avoid heavy use of one particu-
lar stream. Airplanes, jeeps, and rubber boats dangerously increase fishing in-
tensity.

In the discussion it was brought out that fishermen prefer to find native species
in the streams, and Mr. Dill stated that, although early fish planting was indis-
criminate, the policy is to adhere to native species as much as possible.

Mr. Sumner pointed out that management of wildlife and wilderness preserva-
tion are somewhat incompatible; the kind of management discussed here is essen-

FIRST CONFERENCE 135

tially restoration of species and planting of fish, but wildlife management is usually
taken to mean production of a species as a crop for man's use. Restoration of en-
vironment is appropriately a part of wilderness preservation, but increased produc-
tion of some types of animals by suppressing others is not. We harm the wilderness
by exterminating mountain lions, for instance, in order to raise more deer (that
may then find insufficient food for their increased population). In the wilderness
we should try to preserve or restore the natural balance.
Other points made in the discussion:

When we speak of stream improvement, it is usually improvement only for the
trout. Other fauna are affected, perhaps adversely.

In national parks, at least, no one species is regarded as more desirable than any
other; thus we do not advocate predator control there.

In areas where rodents must be controlled because of the diseases they carry, we
should teach people to avoid all rodent contact.

Mr. Zahniser emphasized the complexity of relationships in the wilderness and
the danger inherent in disturbing them by pointing out that predator control can
lead to deer eruptions; the deer eruptions may so injure the forest that hunters
must be brought in to remove them ; to get the hunters in, roads or airplanes may
be required. Thus, by controlling the predator, we end up destroying the wilder-
ness.

Camping in the Wilderness

Discussion Chairman: Millard M. Barnum, Chief, Division of Recreation and
Lands, United States Forest Service, Region 5

Introductory Speaker: Richard M. Leonard, Chairman of Outing Committee,
Sierra Club

Mr. Leonard showed how problems of camping in the wilderness become im-
portant as we approach saturation use. We must accept some type of regulation if
the wilderness is to be protected even though subjected to heavy use.

One of the biggest problems is leaving camps clean. Frequently used camps be-
come littered with cans and trash left by careless and ignorant campers; succeed-
ing campers naturally lose interest in disposing of their own rubbish. We should
try first to get these camps clean, then to keep them clean. Packers have cleaned
up many of them ; so have some of the larger camping parties with plenty of man-
power. Park and Forest services are too short-handed to do much, but cooperative
efforts should accomplish a great deal. Boy Scout parties have been subsidized for
clean-up campaigns, with moderate success.

What about disposal problems? What are the best methods? To dig garbage pits
in the meadow may injure the meadow itself. Elsewhere may be too rocky to dig.
Garbage and cans should be burned, lest animals dig them out, but firewood may
be too scarce. Further, should charcoal and fire-blackened rocks be buried? Or is
it better to confine the fires to one place by leaving rocks set up?

How may we best educate campers to keep camps in good order, once we get
them cleaned up? Registration and the issuance of campfire permits provide op-
portunity for contact and education, as well as control. But how much control is
desirable? In essence, the Forest Service issues campfire permits and the campers
tell the ranger where they are going, while the Park Service issues permits and the
ranger tells the campers where they may go. Fairly rigid control is of course
necessary along roads but may be inappropriate in back country. Granted that
it is useful to know where a party is going (to fix responsibility for abused camp-
sites or to find an individual in an emergency), is this much regimentation de-

136 Wildlands in Our Civilization

stroying one of the values of wilderness? How much regimentation should we be
obliged to accept for the protection of the wilderness, under present conditions or
under increased population pressure?

In the discussion, it was evident that everybody recognized the need for educa-
tion, but was uncertain how it could best be accomplished. In addition, these spe-
cific points were emphasized:

Mr. Livermore favored further trial of the Scout clean-up parties under more
definite direction. He also thought some sort of record of parties at a campsite was
needed, to fix responsibility for dirty camps. He considered burying cans generally
impractical, and proposed to try packing some out.

Another packer expressed the view that it is the responsibility of the Park and
Forest services to provide facilities for refuse disposal, but Mr. Thompson ob-
jected that, although those are service responsibilities in the public camps, in the
back country we could get into a vicious cycle of having more and more regula-
tions and more and more paid employees cleaning up after campers, which would
be incompatible with our idea of wilderness. Wilderness travelers should be able to
clean up after themselves. If we start building improvements in the wilderness,
where will they stop ?

Mr. Brower suggested that large parties, having cleaned up their campsites,
might dig and leave open smaller pits for the use of campers who follow. Mr.
Kehrlein urged that when efficient methods of refuse disposal have been worked
out, future campers should be educated in these methods. A booklet on "How to
Take Care of Yourself in the Wilderness," including instructions for garbage dis-
posal, could be prepared for distribution by packers and by Park and Forest
rangers.

Mr. Farquhar spoke for less rigid regimentation of knapsackers, pointing out that
the total number is small and that they seldom know (and should not be re-
quired to promise) where they will wish to camp a week hence.

Mr. Allie Robinson believed that registration should be required of all campers
(he pointed out that there is now no control over the private party or the "boot-
leg" packer). Instruction material could be issued at the registration point. Regis-
tration and education should help in keeping the camps clean.

Mr. Buckman pointed out the practical difficulties of registration in a place like
Mineral King, where five passes lead out and the nearest ranger is 21 miles away.
He urged, though, that when parties register, all names and the proposed itinerary
should be included.

Keeping the Wilderness Wild

Discussion Chairman: Byron Beattie, Supervisor, Sierra National Forest

Introductory Speaker: Howard Zahniser, Executive Secretary, The Wilderness
Society, and Editor, The Living Wilderness

Mr. Zahniser made it clear that protecting the existing wilderness against con-
flicting demands for other uses, and providing for reservation of additional wilder-
ness areas, is only a part of our concern. Safeguarding the wilderness that we do
have involves, really, the wildness of ourselves and other visitors to the wilderness.
We have an inborn tendency to make over the wilderness rather than to adapt
ourselves to it.

Wilderness is an intellectual concept as well as a type of physical environment.
The intellectual concept is important. We use the expression, "Freedom of the
Wilderness." Wilderness is an area wherein we are not managing anything and are
not being managed while we are there. That is what we should safeguard. (Para-
doxically, we want to manage wilderness areas so as to preserve freedom from

FIRST CONFERENCE 137

management.) In the back country specifically designated as wilderness our con-
cern should always be with the preservation of its wilderness character and the
authenticity of the wilderness experience that we have there. These, the human
values of the wilderness, are the most easily sacrificed. What we take into the wil-
derness with us may destroy that authenticity. It is a fortunate thing that we
do have a conscience or a taste that tells us when wilderness is being compromised
a little bit.

It is more important to safeguard the authenticity of the experience we have
in the wilderness than to make it of long duration or to provide it for large num-
bers. We wish, of course, to have as many as possible share wilderness experience —
but we still want the wilderness to be wild when we get there, and to experience it
as wilderness.

Granted that the status quo is optimum, we may, in order to preserve wilderness
and authenticity of experience, have to insist on registration, then on reservation,
and eventually on rationing. That may be half a century away, but in our think-
ing and planning today we should prepare for it. We ourselves should affirm our
devotion to the wilderness by eschewing all the little conveniences that may in the
end alter that devotion.

Restrictions on their activities might permit a lot of people to be in the wilder-
ness without causing administrative difficulty or jeopardizing the wilderness. But
we would do better to restrict the number of people in the wilderness and let those
who do go into it have a real wilderness experience when they are there.

Mr. Beattie opened the discussion by pointing out that we are deeply concerned
with the conflict between wilderness use and maintenance of unchanged wilder-
ness habitat. He also suggested that we may have differences of opinion on what
"wilderness" implies and what is proper in a wilderness.

Lewis Clark said we have almost no chance nowadays of finding absolute wilder-
ness such as our forefathers encountered, but that we must maintain conditions
that are as natural as possible. Most of us accept trails, and probably we should be
willing to accept simple man-made structures that are necessary for preservation
of the area, if they are constructed of native materials.

Superintendent Scoyen offered the opinion that our most serious threat is the
increasing pressure for economic development. Mr. Leonard agreed that we are
all aware of this major threat, but that the organizations represented at the con-
ference are firmly bound to fight economic encroachments to the limit and that
our present problem is to keep what wilderness we now possess from being dam-
aged by our own use.

Mr. Baker pointed out that the problem has two aspects: to prevent alterations
of soil, water and plant and animal life, and to exclude the extraneous sights and
sounds that disturb the wilderness traveler.

Mr. Livermore said, "We all know we are in favor of wilderness, but let's get in
the record — no dams, no roads, no nothing except wilderness!"

Mr. Cronemiller pointed out the importance of setting up defensible boundaries
about the wilderness areas.

Miss James stated that our final defense against encroachment lies in a strong
and informed public opinion, developed and kept alive by our small conservation
groups. To build and maintain a public opinion that will rally to the defense of
forests and parks is our major problem and responsibility.

Mr. Brower urged sound planning for education in the schools on the values of
wilderness. The Forest Service has done a good job of making people realize the
importance of trees; we should do as well to make school children and the general
public conscious of the values of wilderness.

Mr. Thompson urged that we agree on a reasonable concept of what a wilder-
ness ought to be and what would violate it; extreme views are too likely to be
defeated. A program of education must have a sound, generally acceptable founda-
tion. We may eventually have to accept the modification implied in Mr. Zahniser's
three R's — registration, reservation, rationing.

138 Wildlands in Our Civilization

High Country Administration Problems

Discussion Chairman : Bernarr Bates, Travel Editor, Sunset

Introductory Speaker: John R. Barnard, California Vice-President, Federa-
tion of Western Outdoor Clubs

Mr. Barnard pointed out that within the High Sierra region there are three na-
tional parks, a national monument, and three Forest Service wilderness areas;
with seven administrators, a high degree of cooperation is needed, and there is
ample evidence of it. (Examples of admirable cooperation between agencies were
given.) There are always problems, however. Decisions made by the Park or For-
est service may be practical from the service viewpoint but none too palatable to
wilderness users. For this reason, in particular, uniformity of regulations is highly
desirable. Understanding and compliance will be easier if rules are alike in all areas.
Of course a difference in administrative purposes makes complete uniformity im-
possible (hunting, for example, is permitted in national forests but not in parks),
but over-all protection would be enhanced by as much uniformity and simplicity
in regulations as possible.

Where two or more governmental agencies are involved in one problem, co-
ordination of planning is important. Proper initial study would have prevented
the great difficulties occasioned by the Bureau of Reclamation's project to build
a dam on Lake Solitude, in the Cloud Peak Primitive area, or the Army Engineers'
attempts to get approval of the Glacier View damsite in Glacier National Park. On
a smaller scale, trail-building plans should often be a joint project between Park
and Forest services. Uniformity — or at least coordination — of regulations with re-
spect to aircraft would eliminate such problems as in the Superior Roadless Area,
where air travel is invading what would otherwise be well protected wilderness.

In the ensuing discussion. Professor Joel Hildebrand urged better enforcement of
regulations and more effective education of wilderness travelers on the spot by
roving rangers who might turn up in any camp at any time. He recognized the
scarcity of ranger personnel and stated that we should make every effort to secure
adequate appropriations for both services. He also urged increased use of campfire-
program talks and campfire permits as vehicles for wilderness education. Mr. Bates
also spoke of the need for greater appropriations for adequate ranger forces.

Mr. Buckman suggested that issuance of a permit might be like that of a driving
license — the applicant should prove some knowledge.

Mr. Brower suggested that the services explore the possibility of deputizing com-
petent persons to help patrol the back country.

It was generally agreed that a greater ranger force is necessary to carry out all
the responsibilities of back-country administration.

SECOND CONFERENCE 139

THE SECOND BIENNIAL
WILDERNESS CONFERENCE,
March 30-31, 1951

Wilderness and Mobilization

Discussion Chairman: Lawrence C. Merriam, Regional Director, National Park
Service

Introductory Speaker: Sam Davis, President, High Sierra Packers' Association

Mr. Davis, in suggesting possible effects of mobilization needs on wilderness use
and administration, stated, "Yet we cannot afford to make mistakes because we
are under pressure." It was generally felt that long-range policy should be firmly
adhered to.

Among points raised were lessened appropriations and the best use of what
money and manpower resources may be available; probability of pressures for
such invasive uses of wilderness as troop training, lumbering, power and mining
activity; the importance of wilderness recreation during wartime. In subsequent
discussion it was pointed out that the pressures in "emergencies" are seldom from
the public or its agencies, but usually from private interests seeking opportunities
for special permits.

The use of wilderness for military recreation and for military training was dis-
cussed. The tendency to use wilderness for maneuvers was deplored; men with
experience in military training pointed out that lands outside the wilderness could
be used just as well.

There was a plea that we accept present conditions, not as an emergency, but
as "a new normal," and meet them without hysteria.

Wilderness and Wildlife Management

Discussion Chairman: Walter L. Doty, Editor, Sunset Magazine

Introductory Speaker: A. Starker Leopold, Associate Professor of Zoology,
University of California

Dr. Leopold stated that some species of wildlife thrive best in complete wilder-
ness associated with climax vegetation (though deer, bear, beaver, grouse, rabbits
are tolerant of human influences and do well in spite of them) . Our particular con-
cern should be with the species that are harmed by effects of human activity and

140 Wildlands in Our Civilization

can exist only under undisturbed wilderness conditions. These animals are the big-
horn sheep, wolverine, fishers, and condors.

The preservation of these species can best be accomplished by the maintenance
of primitive conditions in their critical habitat. Predatory animals should not be
controlled in these wilderness areas.

Where mountain sheep seasonally stray from their wilderness habitat and come
into conflict with deer and domestic animals, the latter should be regulated to
favor the mountain sheep.

Wilderness and Land-Use Conflicts : How Can They Be Reconciled?

Discussion Chairman: Stuart R. Ward, Executive Secretary, Commonwealth
Club

Introductory Speaker: Everett A. Pesonen, Administrative Officer (Conserva-
tion), Bureau of Reclamation; A. T. Spencer, formerly President, California
Woolgrowers' Association; Norman B. Livermore, Jr., Owner-operator, Monte-
sol Lumber Company; Jack C. Eraser, District Fisheries Biologist, Tahoe
District, Division of Fish and Game

In opening the topic, Mr. Pesonen stated that there are so many different values
in wilderness, and that approaches to the problems of wilderness are often emo-
tional. Further, where there are conflicting land-use demands, different government
agencies may appear to be opposed to one another, although the conflict is between
demands rather than between agencies.

He expressed his belief that there is much greater realization of the significance
of wilderness values among engineers engaged in water-resource planning now than
ever before, and that various conservation agencies now have a better understanding
of and sympathy toward one another. He urged that "recreation ... be made a
function of multiple-purpose water control projects so reservoirs may make the
maximum contribution in the way of recreational opportunities and thereby help
to relieve the pressure on wilderness areas."

Mr. Spencer declared that range management is the grass-roots basis of the stock
business, and that there is real competition for the grassland resource in recreation
areas. As the population increases the wildlife and stock move out. He pointed out
that administration of wilderness in Forest Service areas (with multiple-purpose
use) is different from that in national parks, where "the resources are locked up."
He emphasized the importance of grassland in meat production. He believes that
increased range-management study is more important than use of wilderness as a
control to show what nature can do.

Mr. Livermore quoted several lumber operators' views on wilderness; most of
them had said in effect that they favored reservation of areas that are of high
value as wilderness but of low value for anything else. Some thought that timber
operations need not interfere with recreational use, and that reservation as wilder-
ness is therefore unnecessary. One believes that timber in wilderness areas should
be harvested selectively, though he would approve preservation of "strips on the
main traveled roads in their natural state." Those who seemed to understand more
clearly what wilderness is and why it should be preserved still doubted the wisdom
of having so much merchantable timber kept inaccessible in parks.

These quotations illustrated Mr. Livermore's point that part of the difficulty in
preserving wilderness is that the public has a very loose idea of what wilderness
is. He added his own definition: an area large enough so that people traveling into
it have to camp out, and attractive enough that they want to camp in it. Though

SECOND CONFERENCE 141

declaring himself a lover of wilderness, he raised the question of how much ought
to be set aside; he thinks too much timberland was taken out of production in the
establishment of the Olympic National Park, the lowlands of which contain ten
per cent of Washington's remaining virgin timber.

Mr. Fraser explained the program for stream-flow maintenance through con-
struction of a few small dams on high lakes to alleviate late-season drying up of
streams and to permit fi.sh in lower lakes to move up and spawn. Some of the
most favorable sites for these small dams are within wilderness areas. He stated
that the objective is no more disturbance than necessary; sites are chosen on
lakes that have few fish anyhow or where fluctuation in level will have little effect
on habitat or fish population. The Division of Fish and Game considers these dams
justifiable from a fisheries viewpoint; Mr. Fraser believes that Fish and Game
would strongly combat encroachment (i.e. hydroelectric projects), but that a few
little dams would have slight influence on the outcome of that conflict.

In turning the topic over to general discussion, Mr. Ward commented on the
many demands for exceptions to wilderness-preservation principles, and said that
the wilderness might be like the frog that was boiled to death a degree at a time.

Arthur Blake (Sierra Club) asked Mr. Pesonen if the Bureau of Reclamation
was interested in the irrigation-water possibilities in flow-maintenance dams; Mr.
Pesonen said that the storage was insignificant.

Mr. Blake also asked Mr. Spencer about the trend to fatten stock on the home
ranch; Mr. Spencer quoted the large acreage of irrigated pastures in California
now, and said that the irrigated pastures are the finishing lands, but the ranges
are the breeding lands. Mr. Beattie (Forest Service) stated that, in the Sierra Na-
tional Forest, at least, there is a voluntary decline in grazing permits within the
last decade; he told of a 400-head "preference" near Kings Canyon dropped be-
cause it was not economic.

Herb London (Packers' Association) raised the question of a firmer definition
of wilderness, which he feels is "a small segment — a holdover — of our heritage"
and worthy of strong protection. He asked, "How can you regulate all these little
piece-meal attacks so they don't devour the whole wilderness?"

P. A. Thompson (who identified himself simply as "a conservationist") insisted
that "conservation" must include use, and that the United States Forest Service
policy under regulation U-1 permits small dams and grazing. He felt that some
compromise is necessary as population pressures increase, and that we cannot hope
to hold wilderness at all if we try to keep it free of compromise.

Hilary Crawford (California Alpine Club) remarked that he thought that that
was surrender rather than compromise.

John W. Spencer (Izaak Walton League, formerly Forest Service) stated that
reconciling other uses with wilderness is impossible. Wilderness is not a multiple-
purpose area and we cannot say that in wilderness other uses have equal rights
with recreation. We cannot reconcile these other uses with wilderness; we can
only tolerate them to the extent that they do no lasting damage.

Richard Leonard (Sierra Club) urged that we clarify our thinking about our
primeval areas wherever they may be: whereas it would be possible to manage
them for more pounds of meat or more acre-feet of water, we ought to have at
least this small sample of our land kept unmanaged, to show just how it used to
be.

Elmer Aldrich (Beaches and Parks) pointed out that whatever we have achieved
in wilderness preservation has always been on principle. Howard Zahniser (Wilder-
ness Society) reinforced the plea that action be based on principle, not on case-by-
case decision and exceptions. "The only line we can draw is the boundary line."

Byron Beattie (Forest Service) and John W. Spencer emphasized the threats
in the mining laws, under which a man who has a valid claim can build a road
and carry on mining operations even within wilderness area. They consider these
threats among the most serious of all the conflicting demands on wilderness.

142 Wildlands in Our Civilization

Mr. Ward closed the session with a plea for the consideration and full apprecia-
tion of the intangibles: "What is the value of looking at a forest slope without
mine tailings? ... of not having artificial dams? ... of a campfire with no
traffic sounds? ... of alpenglow seen without intervening power wires?"

[See the conference paper by Mr. Zahniser, "How Much Wilderness Can We
Afford to Lose?" on page 46 for the address delivered at this point in the
proceedings.]

Wilderness and Accessibility

Discussion Chairman: Luther T. Hoffman, Regional Administrator, Bureau of
Land Management

Introductory Speaker: P. A. Thompson (formerly Regional Forester, United
States Forest Service)

Mr. Thompson pointed out that the discussion thus far had kept returning to
protection and preservation of existing wilderness, and quoted an earlier Sierra
Club statement: "Bit by bit the wilderness succumbs to those influences which man
himself, fleeing from the cities, brings with him, to the detriment of the sanc-
tuary." It was his belief that if use endangers the wilderness, then that use must
be regulated. Possibly the wilderness is too accessible, therefore used by ununder-
standing people who create pressures for the ultimate harm of the wilderness. The
dilemma is that if wilderness is inaccessible, there is no use; if it is too accessible,
there is no wilderness. Somewhere between must be the limits for judging the
proper number of trails, campgrounds, and other developments.

A highway right up to the boundary of a wilderness could be as harmful as a
road through it, for it would provide too easy access to people whose interest is
not in the wilderness itself but merely in getting out, and who consider it neces-
sary to carry with them much of their normal surroundings. These people then
take in too many horses and mules, with destructive effect on the meadows. We
must consider regulations for the protection of the meadows — perhaps regulation
of the type and quantity of stock, perhaps insistence on keeping to certain trails
and bringing in feed, perhaps barring stock entirely from some portions of the
wilderness. He favors leaving some parts trailless. Experienced backpackers with
proper wilderness manners do no harm — but there is no way of "running people
through a sieve and having only the good-mannered ones come out," and even
here regulations may become necessary. Education is still important, and legisla-
tion is not the only answer; "You can't legislate morality."

Walter Starr (Sierra Club) agreed with Mr. Thompson that plans for new trail
building should be carefully scrutinized; Richard Leonard added that it was Starr
who had originated a resolution by the Sierra Club calling for a master plan for
trails in the Sierra, and that we must try to come to some decision, perhaps as a
result of such a conference as this, on how much accessibility is desirable or safe.

Sam Davis (Packers' Association) agreed that not even packers would suggest
that every spot be made accessible by trail, but commented that people who try
to defend the wilderness don't themselves go there and that he believed 1,000
people go to Rae Lakes for every one into the Monarch Divide area. He felt strongly
that too many people destroy wilderness; he does not approve of too-large parties.

John W. Spencer (Izaak Walton League) called for a sensible trail plan to pro-
vide a middle-ground solution between a dusty alley and innumerable spur trails
into every corner. He advocated relying on judgment of the local administrator
rather than rigid regulations.

SECOND CONFERENCE 143

Eivind Scoyen (National Park Service) said he was not proceeding on the as-
sumption that we are to discourage use of wilderness areas, and wants to work
out a good plan of distribution and development. He felt that some cabins (snow-
survey cabins, outpost camps, and the like) may be needed to make portions of
the wilderness accessible to enough people, although he expressed himself as per-
sonally opposed to structures in the back country. He is opposed to "destinations"
in the back country.

Jack Barnard (Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs) said that how people feel
about wilderness determines how they use it; education is therefore important, so
that they may use wilderness without using it up.

Frederick Law Olmsted (Wilderness Society, American Planning and Civic Asso-
ciation) asked that wilderness organizations consider study of the dominant func-
tions of particular wilderness areas, which may be different, even antagonistic. Some
areas may be important primarily for ecological studies (which would be made
ideally by an observer suspended from a nondisturbing sky hook!); at the other
end of the scale, for providing personally gratifying activities. "We lump these
wilderness values together too loosely; . . . they're as varied as economic values."
Studies and classifications would help in protection.

Understanding the Wilderness Point of View

Discussion Chairman: William J. Losh, Owner, Lee and Losh, Public Relations

Introductory Speaker: Lowell Sumner, Biologist, Region 4, National Park
Service

Mr. Losh, before introducing the speaker, pointed out that we must first try to
define what we understand by wilderness; then, when we can agree, must seek the
support of the public for this concept.

Mr. Sumner emphasized the necessity for agreement on a definition; our own
discussions among ourselves illustrate the diversity of individual concepts; there
is danger that our debates may prejudice the needed public support of the remain-
ing wilderness, which is such a small portion of our total area.

Size is important; there is a dangerous tendency to whittle away a preserve,
through compromises, until the area is too small to retain its original attributes.
We must not divert so much energy to small preserves that we lose sight of the
defense of those that are still large enough to encompass what we are trying to
preserve (including a year-round habitat for characteristic species). Already too
many of our preserves are but "remnant" areas, and cannot provide subsistence for
native species.

The quality of sanctuary is important, and we must consider how far we can
invade it without loss of wilderness. For example, if wildlife management is car-
ried on to the point where reduction in predators necessitates slaughtering of deer,
do we have wilderness? Who today has the chance to know marten, wolverine,
fisher, otter? An unmeddled-with area in which nature can take its course is of
high value for scientific study as well as aesthetically.

He said we need not take to heart the charges of selfishness: the less than one
per cent of our land that is in wilderness is largely without value for farming,
lumbering, or other commercial production. To the argument that a motorist has
equal rights of access, we can point out that the other 99 per cent is acccessible;
further, how selfish, how undemocratic to try to take away from the minority who
appreciate it their fraction of one per cent of unproductive land ! Administration
costs (of the land that is ideally left alone!) are too low to be a factor; to keep

144 Wildlands in Our Civilization

the total acreage of wilderness remaining in our country probably costs each per-
son about ten cents a year. "When our nation is so poverty-stricken that we can't
afford to fill our gas tanks or go to the movies, then it is time to think about using
up that remnant."

Hubert Jenkins (Sacramento College) reemphasized Mr. Olmsted's point that
we should define the different kinds of wilderness, and make sure that new-
comers to the conservation field understand wilderness needs, lest continuing re-
definition result in surrender of an inch or two at a time until there is nothing left.

Howard Zahniser thought the use of the same word, "wilderness," for both
recreational and land-management problems (which are not the same) must be
confusing; but even if we are not yet ready to restrict ourselves with too strict a
definition, we must not lose sight of the necessity of preserving primeval environ-
ment, freedom from mechanization, a sense of remoteness, and those characteristics
that impress visitors with their relationship to nature.

John W. Spencer pointed out that although people who are mindful of the small
amount of timber or food resources in withdrawn areas may think of them as an
economic loss, their high watershed value alone would justify withholding them
from all other interfering uses. "We conservationists don't have to apologize to
anybody for defending these high-mountain areas!"

One conference member raised the question of "cropping" wilderness resources.
Mr. Spencer insisted that the best management was letting it alone. Another
thought that too much withdrawal might cut down on water for power, but Mr.
Spencer pointed out that in our mountain wilderness, although the water-gathering
capacity is high, storage potentialities are fortunately higher outside the wilderness
areas.

Mr. Sumner agreed that "cropping" was one of the proper uses of wilderness if
we can properly define it as recreation use; harvesting, outside the wilderness, of
a wildlife overflow; and gathering of scientific data.

The original protestant said he was particularly interested in the possible har-
vesting of water and timber. Eivind Scoyen asked, "Are you asking if we should
permit managed grazing, lumbering, water, and power development in the wilder-
ness? . . . The answer is 'No !' "

Byron Beattie suggested we tend to spend too much time talking among our-
selves, and that we should emphasize educating others.

Lois Crisler (Wilderness Society) insisted that for our definition scenery with
a feeling of remoteness is not enough — it must also be the home of life appropriate
to the environment (though we need not see the animals themselves if there is evi-
dence of their life) .

Wilderness Administration: How Can We Plan for Maximum Use
WITH Minimum Damage?

Discussion Chairman: John W. Spencer, Director, Izaak Walton League (for-
merly Regional Forester, United States Forest Service)

Introductory Speaker: Carl P. Russell, Superintendent, Yosemite National Park

Dr. Russell stated that although Yosemite Valley itself is not a part of the back
country, what happens there can affect the back country and may be illustrative.
He cited park purposes and the need for coordination and cooperation in carrying
them out, including a master plan for all recreational areas within a given region.

He quoted Zahniser's statement that "we have an inborn tendency to make
over the wilderness rather than to adapt ourselves to wilderness conditions" and
that "the human values of wilderness are most important to us." He agreed that

SECOND CONFERENCE 145

authenticity of a wilderness experience may be more important than duration,
but disagreed that the need for rationing (as suggested in Zahniser's "3 R's" for
wilderness) was a half century away; he said he had then on his desk an order
to extend to Tuolumne Meadows the Hmitation of camper's stay as already in
effect in the Valley and at Wawona. He felt that there was increasing need for
regulation of the use of the high country surrounding Tuolumne Meadows, for
as use of the back country increases, so does the danger of losing the very thing
that brings people to it. Enforcement of regulations becomes more and more
difficult as use is doubled while staff is cut down. The need for education be-
comes increasingly acute; he feels that issuance of a campfire permit provides
a good opportunity for educational contact with the public.

He also cited a newspaper editorial bemoaning the loss of Hetch Hetchy,
which would have provided badly needed additional camping sites, and reminded
the audience ''to be safe, resist the beginnings." He pointed out that Yosemite's
troubles began a hundred years ago.

In ensuing discussion, several pleaded for relaxation of the existing system
whereby campers obtaining campfire permits for back-country trips in Yosemite
National Park have been definitely told to use certain designated campsites; many
felt that although issuance of a campfire permit provides valuable opportunity for
contact and education, designating campsites constitutes a degree of regimentation
that is undesirable for the visitor and that gives rise to increased administrative
difficulties.

A number of Conference members referred to the need for increased educa-
tion of campers; it was generally agreed that sufficient education would greatly
relieve the damage the wilderness is now suffering and would ease the adminis-
trative difficulties, and ways are being sought to bring about effective education.

146 Wildlands in Our Civilization

THE THIRD BIENNIAL
WILDERNESS CONFERENCE,
May 15-16, 1953

Richard M. Leonard, President of the Sierra Club, opened the Conference.

General Chairman John W. Spencer, retired regional forester, said that the
idea of wilderness areas grew from a recognition of the relationship between wil-
derness, human use, and spiritual values. The wilderness areas we have today
are a pathetically small part of our great public domain set aside for the things
that mean so much to all of us. There was too little opposition to exploitation
of the areas that should have been preserved, and places that could have been
made wilderness areas forty years ago are no longer suitable. The crisis of today
is to hold what we have. Legislation already in Congress would destroy the whole
idea of wilderness, and lead to destruction of the sanctity of the national parks.
That such legislation can be considered indicates a lack of land-use understanding.

Mr. Spencer said that a weakness of the conservation groups was that they
pass a flock of resolutions and go away feeling like a Boy Scout with a sense
of duty done. They must disseminate the information to more and more people.
He hoped that out of the Conference could come clear-cut and concise under-
takings for each organization concerned.

The Wilderness Idea: How Can We Maintain It?

Discussion Chairman: Clare W. Hendee, Regional Forester, Region 5, United
States Forest Service

Panel Members: Millard M. Barnum, Assistant Regional Forester, Region 5,
United States Forest Service; Father John S. Duryea, Director, Newman Club,
San Jose State College; William J. Losh, Lee & Losh, Public Relations; Law-
rence C. Merriam, Regional Director, Region 4, National Park Service; Bestor
Robinson, Member, Advisory Committee to Secretary of the Interior; Lyle
F. Watts, Secretary, Oregon Division, Izaak Walton League

Mr. Robinson declared that we were getting fine public support for the wil-
derness idea and were no longer on the defensive, but we could not let the team
disband. He believed that the mechanism of zoning could be used to enforce
wilderness protection.

He thought we had reached agreement on the desirability of preserving wil-
derness, but not on what activities were permissible within the preserves. There
seemed to be two contradictory philosophies underlying wilderness preservation
— that the sole function of wilderness is to contribute to the inspiration and well-

THIRD CONFERENCE 147

being of people, and that wilderness itself has a personality — a soul — and should
be preserved for its own sake. Mr. Robinson favored the first. We must con-
sider that man is the worst predator that wilderness has to contend with. He
apparently wants a wilderness area just as natural as he can have it to enjoy
as a civilized human being, but is only semi-civilized in his living habits in it.
Game trails were natural, but man's trails were the result of dynamite. We need
several degrees of wilderness, some with no trails, some we might call Class 2
wilderness. Horses and mules, generally considered suitable, can themselves be
destructive of wilderness. Is there a way of bringing people into the wilderness
without horses? Would the helicopter result in less damage? What about pro-
tection against fire and insects? What about sanitation? What about shelter?
To what extent are concealed but permanent structures appropriate to the en-
joyment and safety of people visiting the wilderness? If we are primarily inter-
ested in wilderness for its contribution to human beings, to what extent is
management justifiable to increase use, and to what extent should we try to
develop wilderness areas with gateways and buffer zones? We have to solve
these problems before we can enact provisions intended for the protection of
wilderness.

Howard Zahniser (Wilderness Society) said that Mr. Robinson's comments
presented a quandary: Are we going to have to manage the wilderness for human
beings? He said, "We are concerned with ourselves as human beings, and yet
we are concerned with the wilderness because of its importance to us as human
beings. We are concerned with its 'purity' in certain places because we are con-
vinced that our needs as human beings are concerned with access to a part
of the wilderness from which we came." He stated that it is beyond our ability
to evaluate our own importance as human beings in comparison with that of
wilderness for its own sake. We must so treat wilderness that we cannot be
accused of having placed our own importance too highly above it.

Dr. Olaus J. Murie (Wilderness Society) pointed out that there was need at
public hearings, for expressions from those who would have wilderness pro-
tection continued or increased as well as from those who would have it broken
down. Usually it was groups wishing to exploit wilderness for their own pur-
poses who express themselves most vigorously to public officials.

He was convinced that a philosophy is growing that we don't want to get
too far away from our origins. Even in gardens around homes we were taking
a step in the right direction — that is, toward an appreciation of natural things.

Dr. Murie did not feel that we could formulate a definition of wilderness at
this time that would be universally satisfactory — perhaps not for several gen-
erations yet. There was, though, a growing feeling — as expressed in recent meet-
ings of the International Union for the Protection of Nature, in Venezuela —
that we should consider the "rights of nature." There was need for some sort
of ethic for the conservation of natural things.

David Brower (Sierra Club) felt we did need a wilderness definition that in
itself would help protect wilderness. He cited Mr. Livermore's definition of wil-
derness as an area big enough that in crossing it one has to camp out overnight,
and attractive enough that one would want to camp in it. He himself felt that
it might be well expressed if we talked about an area in which there was no
evidence of man's coming, being there, or having been there. He commented on
a recent statement by Chief Forester McArdle that the definition of wilderness
must be strengthened so that our protection of it may be strengthened. Buffer
zones and semi-wilderness should be outside the presently designated areas. There
should be no additional use within them. Mr. Brower Uked Olaus Murie's urging
that we leave open the decision on whether we should have wilderness by leav-
ing the wilderness there. We should make sure that the boundary around a wil-
derness was just as firm and definite as was the damage that can be done to
the wilderness. If some of its features are particularly susceptible to damage, we

148 Wildlands in Our Civilization

should be willing to limit our activities in or about them. He said that he would
be satisfied never to see a condor if he knew that because of human restraint
the condors still have some place to survive.

Walter Starr (Sierra Club) quoted the definition of wilderness as "an unin-
habited tract of land unchanged from its natural condition," then added the
qualification that people may visit the area and still leave it "uninhabited" if
they leave no permanent structures or artifacts. He emphasized that dams or
roads definitely violate the wilderness concept (as also would too many man-made
trails). Transportation in a wilderness was properly on foot or by horses on
land; by canoe, rowboat, or raft on water; man-made machines had no place
in wilderness. The livestock could become a problem, however, and we needed
to find ways to control its use so as not to injure a wilderness area permanently.

Mr. Losh pointed out that in trying to set a definition for the use of experts
we should remember that there are degrees, not only of wilderness, but also
of wilderness understanding and appreciation. In going to the public for help
in preserving a wilderness area we needed some ranking of areas, so that the
general public could understand something about the "Big League wilderness"
that we were trying to have preserved.

Mr. Zahniser referred to the question, "Where does wilderness begin and end?"
and answered, "With man." The concept of wilderness is something man has
thought of; its values are human values. It may be ended only as a result of
something man has done to it. The degrees of wilderness we preserve depend
on what man is not effective in modifying. A definition might be "an area so little
modified by human influence and activity that when we are within it we are
more aware of other living things than of other men and of what we as men
have done."

Mr. Robinson asked, "What about a mountain meadow that is being badly
eroded? Shall we let it go on eroding, or should it be managed to check ero-
sion?" Mr. Zahniser said, "If it is a meadow for display within a national park,
yes, we should manage it. But if it is being preserved as a natural thing and the
process that is going on is natural, then we should not manage it."

Fred M. Packard (National Parks Association) emphasized that the quality
of isolation was one of the important things to preserve in a wilderness. Any
evidence of mechanization was therefore an intrusion.

Father Duryea spoke of man's relation to wilderness as that of a trustee of
resources whose aesthetic values are as important as the economic ones. Man
learns independence, self-reliance, and spiritual integrity from wilderness. It is
pleasurable, uplifting, and necessary to man in a democracy. Man has a chance
both to meditate in wilderness and to develop a social sense of responsibility
there. Wilderness policy is a type of social self-discipline.

In discussion of the attempt to evaluate wilderness in economic terms, the
general conclusions were that it is impossible to do so and dangerous to try to.
Dr. Harold Crowe (Sierra Club) pointed out that a doctor's fee did not repre-
sent the value of the service he performed in saving a person's life. John Ziv-
nuska (University of California) pointed out that a forest economist must learn
to put an evaluation on things, but that an economic value is only a market
value. It does not express the true worth of a thing, but it may be a measure of the
people's willingness to forego the economic exploitation of an area. Joe Penjold
(Izaak Walton League) emphasized that the economic value of a thing does
not necessarily express its worth. "If we go to a symphony, whether we hear it
from a box or from standing room in the gallery, it is the same symphony we
hear." He extended his illustration: If a symphony orchestra should shut down
temporarily for lack of financial support, it would be able to resume later. But
we cannot apply that to natural assets such as Dinosaur National Monument; if
that were once flooded we could never restore it.

Mr. Packard stated that although intangible values of wilderness cannot be
measured in dollars we often try to convince Congressmen or administrators who

THIRD CONFERENCE 149

do think in dollar terms. He was encouraged that many people support wilder-
ness, not on a dollar basis, but for its own sake. He cited recent hearings on
Buttle Lake in Canada, and the Gila wilderness in the Southwest — where local
people could have profited greatly by exploitation of the areas concerned yet
came out strongly for preservation of the wilderness.

Mr. Losh brought up the point that the scarcity value of the commodity
should be considered. In our wilderness resources we are down to a small frac-
tion of our land area. If we point out to the American people that this is all we
have and we will never have more, it may help. A scarcity value is an economic
value.

Eivind T. Scoyen (Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks) said that at
the going price for timber the General Sherman Tree was probably worth $27,500.
If it were put up for sale, the buyer probably wouldn't cut it down — he would
put a fence around it and charge $1 per person to see it. But, says Scoyen, "We'd
rather have the people who view it evaluate it on a spiritual basis."

Harry E. Radcliffe (American Nature Association) pointed out that in older
civilizations spiritual values were recognized to transcend economic values, and
cited various oriental philosophies. Shintoism is based entirely on nature and
the out-of-doors while its devotees are struggling for a living on a tiny island.
We should not be apologetic about our spiritual motivation.

Mr. Packard added that Japan has a magnificent park system, recently estab-
lished, in spite of the desperate shortage of arable land in that country.

Raymond Hoyt (National Park Service) said that evaluation should be simple
for an engineer: "If we assume that the value of a certain resource is $x, and
multiply that by an infinite number of years of enjoyment, then its value is in-
finite!"

Mr. Merriam spoke of one of the greatest threats to the parks — privately owned
land within their boundaries. The inholdings still amount to about 20 or 30
million dollars' worth of property, and there are very few appropriations made
by Congress for their acquisition. They pose a danger because there is no
present means of controlling activities on these private lands.

Mr. Watts stated that we should try to foresee the values of wilderness for
people of the future, not just today's economics. The values we are trying
to preserve are beyond dollars and beyond measure. He thought the four most
serious threats to wilderness lands came from (a) outmoded mining laws, (b)
private lands within the boundaries, (c) desire to impound water within the
areas, and (d) the strength of commercial demand as against public ownership.
The owner of private land has legal right of egress and ingress and can build
a road across public land ; removal of private ownership is one of the most
urgent problems we have. The construction of dams that are themselves damaging
to wilderness values also involves the construction of roads, which cause further
great damage. Potential commercial value of wilderness lands poses a threat:
Whenever there is lumber, a grazing preference, or some other exploitable re-
source making the land attractive to private ownership, tremendous pressures
build up against the maintenance of wilderness boundaries.

Mr. Barnum and Mr. Hendee told of some progress made in California in re-
vising wilderness area boundaries so as to acquire privately held lands, but
implied that lack of funds prevents some highly desirable acquisitions.

Dr. Murie referred to many discussions that had been held on "defensible
lines" for wilderness area boundaries, and pointed out that if we always tried
to withdraw them to where there would be no conflict, we would have very
little wilderness left.

Mr. Robinson emphasized the importance of one particular mechanism — an
aroused protection, and of the need for hearings on changes in Park Service
master plans in relation to wilderness areas. It was subsequently brought out
that often the notice of a public hearing is not itself made public — or given far
enough ahead of time.

150 Wildlands in Our Civilization

Several persons — speaking as administrators or as conservation leaders — spoke
of the value of public hearings (a) as an educational tool, (b) as a means
of strengthening protection of wilderness or other designated areas, (c) in as-
suring full discussion of an issue (rather than permitting one-sided pressure) and
thereby permitting an administrator to reach a sound decision.

Some concern was expressed that we might tolerate certain incompatible uses
of wilderness areas because we did not recognize soon enough that they would
amount eventually to damaging uses. Dr. Murie cited several practices in national
parks whose effects we could not immediately judge.

Mr. Losh returned to the necessity of helping the public to understand so that
we may receive help from the public. Too much of what we talk about is in-
comprehensible to people who have not themselves experienced the kind of wil-
derness we have in mind. We must place wilderness in perspective with all recreation.
Emphasis on the scarcity value of wilderness — a part of "vanishing America" —
may encourage the general public's interest in protecting it. We must bring the
problems home to the people, to opinion makers, and to various media of mass
circulation. He referred also to the charge of "discrimination" in wilderness use,
and to the necessity of finding satisfactory answers to that. He favored all devices
to bring out ideas, including public hearings, and said, "You never know what
new type of support you are going to get from unexpected new sources." There
are a great many natural allies whom we have not yet drawn into support
of the wilderness.

Mr. Robinson again urged that we encourage a great use of areas which may
be called semi-wilderness and which lie contiguous to actual wilderness areas.
People experiencing something that approaches wilderness would have a better
understanding of the value of actual wilderness and would be more prepared to
defend it. Several persons cautioned, however, that these semi-wilderness areas
or recreation strips must be outside the present wilderness boundaries, or they
would themselves diminish the very wilderness that they were supposed to be
aiding people to understand and save. There were also those who expressed fear
that too successful a job of "selling" wilderness use, if not accompanied by
wilderness understanding, would result in serious damage through overcrowding
and uneducated use.

Mr. Penfold suggested another way of looking at zoning and wilderness-area
use. He coined the word "isoprims," lines on a map connecting points of equally
primitive quality. On such a map a true wilderness would be represented as
the center around which concentric lines spread out, in increasingly urbanized
areas, right out to wherever we happen to live — and where we live is where wil-
derness starts. At the centers of purely primitive conditions we would observe
zoning that has just happened because of geographic or other circumstances
rather than because of planning. It behooved us to zone according to prior deter-
mination, and we must look at least 50 to 100 years ahead in doing so.

Fred Gunsky (Sierra Club) suggested combining remarks of several speakers
to build up a possible public-relations attempt. He doubted that we could ever
sell the idea of preserving pure wilderness, but thought we may find support
for zoned use. Although relatively few people penetrate to the innermost heart
of wilderness, there are many who use and appreciate the outer rings of it, and
all their defensive activities combined could be of inestimable value to our work.

Byron Beattie (Forest Service) commented on the strength of our combined
organizations, both public and private, and stated his belief that a part of
that strength was in the concept of multiple use. A group such as at this Con-
ference might be too busy thinking of pure wilderness to remember about other
lands also valuable for their natural appeal.

Leo Gallagher (The Mountaineers) believed that the wilderness idea could be
sold a lot more easily than we think. Our best approach would be to put our
ideas across to youth. In this connection he felt we were not giving sufficient
support to Scouting and similar movements, and urged all who were concerned

THIRD CONFERENCE 151

for wilderness preservation to devote more time to the education of leaders as
well as of boys and girls.

Francis P. Farquhar (California Academy of Sciences) told of Secretary of
the Interior John Barton Payne, who had been hearing arguments — based on
dollars — ^in favor of construction of a dam that would back water into a national
park area. A Senator implored him, "You wouldn't deny the bread from the
mouths of these millions of people here, would you?" Payne's answer was, "Sena-
tor, there is a heap more to living than three meals a day."

Mr. Zahniser said that progress was being made toward national wilderness
legislation.

The Wilderness We Have: How Can We Use It and Not Lose It?

Discussion Chairman: Joseph W. Penfold, Western Representative, Izaak
Walton League

Panel Members: Byron B. Beattie, Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest;
Harold C. Bradley, Member of Board of Directors, Sierra Club ; Herbert Lon-
don, Secretary, High Sierra Packers' Association, Eastern Unit; Eivind T.
Scoyen, Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks

Mr. Beattie reminded the Conference that inevitably in the management of
wilderness we move from philosophical and spiritual considerations to the cold
realities of administration. Among these cold realities are use figures. For example:
the Mount Dana-Minarets area in 1941 had 19,000 man-days of use. In 1952 that
had increased to 138,000 man-days. This sevenfold increase is representative of
what has happened in all national forest areas. He outlined advances in inter-
service cooperation, on-the-ground study by administrative officials, camp clean-up
and sanitation, and in establishing a sense of public responsibility by the users
of wilderness areas. He described a management plan that will be tried on 32,000
acres of the Bear Creek drainage to develop and demonstrate practices that
may later be extended to other regions. The plan includes provision for a roving
patrol.

Mr. Scoyen felt there has been quite a change since the 1949 Conference, when
pessimism about wilderness preservation seemed to prevail. The discussion pointed
to improvement. He said he had never approached wilderness preservation on
the basis that we discourage use but how to encourage use without damage. He
felt that people could be taught to use wilderness more carefully, and that we
could therefore get more people into it without causing damage. He pointed out
that in appropriations, the Park Service was still losing ground. Work done a
number of years ago by the CCC, the WPA, etc., was now falling apart. Bridges
must be rebuilt, trails must be reworked. Protective maintenance could not be
carried out with the small appropriations presently available.

Mr. London said that the packers as a group probably use the forests and
parks more than anybody else, and he spoke of their concern over increased
use and its effect on the character of the country. He praised Harold Bradley's
clean-up campaign and outlined assistance given to the program by packers;
he also mentioned the difficulty the professional has in influencing some clients.
He felt that backpackers, among the most numerous users of the wilderness,
at times were the worst offenders. Packers cannot reach them with their educa-
tional efforts, and he hoped that Sierra Club and other such groups could. He
reiterated pleas made in earlier conferences for keeping parties of travelers in
the wilderness as small as possible so as to minimize the impact on wilderness;
for greater continuity of Forest Service personnel in the back country; and

152 Wildlands in Our Civilization

for elimination of fenced pastures and the many thousands of feet of barbed
wire that one still could find up and down the Sierra in favor of drift fences.
He also objected to helicopters, pointing out that although they may not trample
any grass or make any trail dust, they certainly do disturb wilderness. Although
the noise and loss of isolation are temporary effects, there are serious permanent
effects of having too many aircraft flying over a wilderness area. He also cited
certain roadless areas seriously changed in character once aircraft landing strips
were built there. Although a flier, he felt that the airplane does not contribute
to the values that people go into wilderness for, and that their use — even on
the edges of wilderness — was inappropriate.

Professor Bradley reported advances in research, education, and indoctrination
toward maintaining wilderness as we like it by keeping necessary management
out of sight. The results of experimentally accelerated weathering of burned
and unburned tin cans were demonstrated, and photographs were exhibited to
show in convincing manner the importance of packing noncombustible trash out
of the mountains. He said, "It is a backlog of public opinion and understanding
that is really going to help in solving wilderness problems. The problems are
not all outside threats such as the plans of the Bureau of Reclamation to invade
Dinosaur National Monument; there are problems of internal deterioration and
loss." He felt that packers and rangers occupy key positions in the front-line
defense against these losses. Whereas one could distribute printed matter in a
city without reaching very many wilderness users, the packers were in a unique
position to help people to understand the problems of keeping a clean and
unharmed camp.

Dr. Murie, commenting on the use of aircraft in wilderness or roadless areas,
cited the danger in taking parties in on short excursions, depleting lakes in which
fishing should be continuously available for the people who come seldom and
slowly. He urged that wilderness should continue to be an experience — something
to come at gradually — and not just a view obtained on a quick trip in and
out. People want to have the experience of getting there themselves.

Mr. Leonard talked of the types of conveniences that could suitably be put in
wilderness areas. He urged going slow in making improvements. He took excep-
tion to a proposal to concentrate the use in wilderness areas into rather small
designated campsites. That would necessitate the construction of sanitary facilities,
built fireplaces, and other marks of concentrated use, which would not be neces-
sary if people were scattered more widely. He expressed admiration of the
philosophy prevailing in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, where the
campers were told, "spread yourselves thin." Mr. Leonard recommended keeping
the wilderness wild by not making it like all the roadside camps.

Mr. Brower commended the idea that management be kept out of sight. He
pointed out that some of the problems that plague park administrators in the
areas of concentrated use were also creeping in in lesser degree right into the
middle of wilderness. For example, snow-survey cabins, if visible from a trail
or a widely used area, are definite violations of wilderness atmosphere. He ex-
pressed the hope that additional rangers put on duty in the back country would
be roving patrolmen, having the excellent effect of the work of "Colonel Benson,
Rover" likely to turn up at anybody's camp at any time. He felt that if back-
country rangers were stationed in cabins or established camps, their effectiveness
as patrolmen would be greatly diminished — wilderness visitors inclined to care-
lessness would be on their good behavior only in the vicinity of the established
cabin or camp.

H. Frank Evans (Wilderness Trail Trips, Glacier National Park) deplored an
unsolved litter problem in Glacier National Park in which, he reported, long-time
accumulations of cans and junk in the vicinity of chalets had not been removed.
He also expressed concern lest pack-horse supply to some of the chalets be sup-
planted by small caterpillar tractors. He felt that the wilderness sections of the

THIRD CONFERENCE 153

park were not receiving sufficient appreciative use, and that where there is a
good road it is easy for people to go through the park too fast to get its values.
He questioned announced plans to spend $1,500,000 to improve the road for
bringing out logs from infected spruce trees then being cut; he suggested using
a better road on the other side of the river and abandoning the old one so that
the area it traverses could return to a wilder condition. Local people regard
that area as a local rather than as a national resource and are not aware of
the problems of the type being discussed at this conference.

Mr. London suggested that if administrators of parks and forests could put
a small portion of their staffs into the back country, the packers could perhaps
match the effort with stock — and possibly men — in an effort to clean up the
worst of the back-country areas, getting them clean so that they would be kept
clean by succeeding campers.

Professor Bradley told of his gratification in finding a ranger and his ten-year-
old son cleaning up camps in the back country of Yosemite the previous sum-
mer; Superintendent Scoyen reported that he and another ranger had under-
taken a project at Rae Lake in 1940 wherein they packed out 121 packloads of
cans. He emphasized that the people who use the wilderness must themselves
learn to do something about the situation. Mr. Scoyen responded, "We can get
a lot more done in regions where there are militant groups that both holler and
help." Mr. Leonard regretted the reported air drop to Evolution Lake and the
use of small tractors, which he considered a dangerous precedent.

Mr. Zahniser offered a $50 prize for the photograph showing the largest
number of cans cleaned up and packed out of the mountains.

Alaska's Arctic Wilderness:
What Can We Do Toward Its Protection?

Discussion Chairman: Francis P. Farquhar, President, California Academy of
Sciences

Panel Members: George E. Gates, Chief, Alaska Geology Branch, U.S. Geo-
logical Survey; A. Starker Leopold, Associate Professor of Zoology University
of California; Olaus J. Murie, President, The Wilderness Society; Robert
Rausch, Chief, Animal-Borne Disease Branch; Lowell Sumner, Biologist, Re-
gion 4, National Park Service; Ira L. Wiggins, Scientific Director, Arctic Re-
search Laboratory (at Point Barrow, Alaska)

Mr. Farquhar said that at the time Yellowstone National Park was established
the idea was considered preposterous that the frontier would ever disappear. Few
could understand the wish to establish a reservoir of the supposedly inexhaustible
wilderness resource. In Alaska we have the same opportunity as existed in 1872 at
Yellowstone, to establish now a reserve to protect the qualities of wilderness only
too rapidly disappearing in the face of accelerated development.

The panel then described an area unfamiliar to most participants, the land
lying in the northeast corner of Alaska, extending from the Canadian border west-
ward about 300 miles and from the shore of the Arctic Ocean southward about
100 miles along the tundra and the rising plateau to the crest of the Brooks Range
and slightly to its south. In the area extensive observations had been made
through two summers under the auspices of the Arctic Research Laboratory. The
members of the panel had participated in or followed the study.

Mr. Gates described the Brooks Range and the plateau north of it. It has mineral
potential. There is oil in the northwestern portion, but the deposits are not known
to be extensive. Other mineral resources are not believed to be significant.

154 Wildlands in Our Civilization

Dr. Rausch told how increasing human population and attendant development
are adversely affecting the wildlife once common even near the centers of settle-
ment. With the accelerated growth of Alaskan cities and a spreading outward from
their centers into the rural areas, the old frontier is gone. "It is no safer now to
hunt moose near Anchorage than to hunt deer in Wisconsin," he said. The decrease
in the bear population is particularly noticeable. He deplored the general cam-
paign carried on by the Fish and Wildlife Service to kill off predatory species
through a variety of means including poison, cyanide gun, and direct shooting. He
feared that this campaign would go too far and urged different wildlife policies.
Recognizing the need for modification of animal population in the vicinity of
built-up areas, he strongly favored a preserve for wildlife large enough that the
fascinating conditions once prevalent all over Alaska could still be preserved in one
part of it.

Dr. Wiggins said changes are inevitable, but some other changes could be pre-
vented in the northeastern portion of Alaska if it could be set aside as a wilderness
preserve. Rapid and lasting changes were being made upon the tundra surrounding
Point Barrow, especially by man's mechanized transportation. The tundra is criss-
crossed by one network laid over another of weasel trails and cat tracks in all
directions from Point Barrow. A tremendous amount of junk had accumulated
around the camp there since 1946, and along the weasel and cat trails are piles of
abandoned gasoline drums. There is evidence of human interference all the way
from Point Barrow to the Brooks Range. On the tundra there is no growth to
hide anything, and disintegration is exceedingly slow. Whatever man discards
there stays there.

He pointed out that a reserve such as proposed would be a permanent laboratory
for studying Arctic flora and fauna. Within this area qualified and selected parties
could study wildlife trends, influences, and interrelationships, and from such a
study gain scientific bases for whatever control measures must be introduced in
other parts of the territory. Then the decision on whether or not wolves were to
be poisoned could be made on the basis of scientific study, not simply because
someone had seen a wolf pull down a caribou. Because the northern (or seaward)
slopes of the Brooks Range are effectively blocked off from the rest of the territory
by the crest of the range, that area makes an excellent laboratory for the study of
wildlife population dynamics.

Further scientific fields which could be profitably studied in that undisturbed
area are archeology, paleontology, and paleobotany, for each of which there are
extremely interesting but so far only slightly studied research sites.

Dr. Murie referred to his own experiences, in which he had spent a winter in the
Brooks Range with his brother Adolph in 1923, and with his wife the next year.
He also spoke of a trip he had made with "a beginning family" in an area west-
ward of the proposed study area. He had found the region of particular interest
because of the low timberline. He had been impressed with the mountain sheep.
He saw the mountains of the Brooks Range only in winter but found them ex-
tremely beautiful. He pointed out that the tundra is not a flat and uninteresting
region, but has a rich and unique life — especially in the spring — that is unlike any-
thing anywhere else. Within our national system of reserves we have such unique
areas as Big Bend, the Joshua Tree National Monument, the High Sierra Wilder-
ness area, etc., but nowhere else is anything like the Arctic tundra that stretches
on into the Arctic mountains. Having sampled the rich resources of this territory,
he would enthusiastically urge dedication of a part of it as a wilderness preserve.
It would be a wonderful thing if we could have some sanctuary for Arctic beauty.
He urged further that any area set aside be big enough to have that one thing
essential in the Arctic — spaciousness.

Mr. Sumner indicated how the tentative boundary for the proposed study area
had come to be drawn. First, it was taking in an area that nobody else seemed to
want. Next, it was marking out an area that was relatively undisturbed ecologically,
from the seashore to the crest of the Brooks Range and then partway down into
the timber on the other side. The line was drawn to exclude habitations on the

THIRD CONFERENCE 155

south and west, then jogged west to include the highest Arctic mountains, Mounts
Chamberlin and Michaelson.

Some interest was being shown in a continuation of the reserve on the Canadian
side of the boundary.

Dr. Leopold warned of educational and political implications. He spoke of re-
sistance and resentment against increased Federal ownership of lands in Alaska,
with so much of the southeastern portion under Forest Service, and where there
are large fish and wildlife reserves, a national park, four national monuments (two
of which are large) , and other miscellaneous federally held properties. In this fron-
tier country the people were feeling constrained. He cautioned that there is great
need for educating the people in general to the value of wilderness for its own
sake — a value that transcends other uses and economic values. Interest in establish-
ment of an Arctic wilderness is limited now to the very few who have studied and
know the area, and to conservation organizations that recognize the value of setting
aside wilderness before it is too late. These leaders will need tremendous public
support before they can go further in any such project as is proposed. Much more
information, education, and persuasion is needed.

Mr. Zahniser pointed out that in all Alaska the number of people is only as
great as the population of Berkeley. What happens to the land there is not a
matter of local concern but of national concern.

Don Graeme Kelly (Cahfornia Academy of Sciences) concluded the discussion
of Arctic Wilderness by reading extracts from an article by Adolph Murie for the
forthcoming number of Pacific Discovery.

Dr. Otto Kraus, Minister of the Interior for Bavaria, attending the conference
as a guest of Mr. Packard, said that he saw the problems of the entire world are
the same: a conflict between spiritual and economic values. The difference, he
said, between his work and ours is that we have a large country; he has limited
space. In the United States we have about 50 people to the square mile; in West
Germany the concentration is about 300 to the square mile, and his work there-
fore is much harder. He listed among the greatest threats to the natural scene in
Bavaria such things as cable railways or funiculars in the mountains, the problem
of cottages all over lakeshores, and the changes wrought or contemplated by
hydroelectric development. They have no extensive wilderness parks or reserves,
but they do have nature monuments (which are individual trees, small groups of
rocks, etc.) and nature reserves (which are somewhat Hke our national parks but
not fully protected, as grazing and lumbering are permitted within them). An im-
portant concept is the protection of landscape against bad development — com-
parable perhaps to zoning here. Areas under such landscape protection are not
necessarily all public. They are often private lands — over which the government,
however, has superior jurisdiction through scenic easements if the land should be
protected for science or for the commonwealth. A continued effort is made to
protect the entire landscape against overuse or bad use. Dr. Kraus said: "A sound
country inside is beautiful outside." And the effort is continued to maintain bio-
logical soundness.

Trash has not so far been a problem along roadsides. Along lakeshores and pic-
nic areas, however, there is beginning to be a problem of Monday-morning litter.
He feels that the tremendously increased travel pressure is responsible. Of their
general conservation efforts, he said: "We try to educate our young people in due
reverence to Creation by radio and through newspapers."

156

Wildlands in Our Civilization

THE FOURTH

BIENNIAL

WILDERNESS

CONFERENCE,

March 18-19, 1955

Richard M. Leonard, President of the Sierra Club, called the conference to order,
and spoke briefly of the history of the three preceding Biennial Wilderness Con-
ferences.

The Rev. James Comfort Smith (Pastor, St. John's Presbyterian Church,
Berkeley, California) asked the conferees to consider what are the most important
non-economic values of wilderness which are more important to each person than
anything else. He suggested that they had to do with a spiritual drive or necessity
of each of us — something a man must have if he is to be a man. He spoke of the
effect on character, steadfastness, humor, and a sense of liberty and freedom of
the wilderness experience. Wilderness should be used so as to leave it untrammeled
for those who come after, and people in the mass must be awakened to what they
stand to lose if wilderness areas are not protected. We are entrusted with an over-
all stewardship of wilderness — something that does not belong to us, but to God.

Mr. Leonard spoke of the arrogance of man in wanting to improve, change or
develop every square foot of the earth and every tree on earth.

Dr. Bryant spoke in some detail of the gains and losses in wilderness during the
years since the First Wilderness Conference. Among the gains he listed: nine bills
to reduce boundaries of Olympic National Park were defeated; Echo Park dam
stopped for the time being; Redman tunnel under Kaibab Plateau of Grand Can-
yon National Park to divert water from Colorado River defeated; former Secre-
tary of Interior Oscar Chapman stopped Glacier View dam project which would
have damaged Glacier National Park, and Sun Butte reservoir in Bob Marshall
Wilderness Area; the Secretary of the Interior ordered that no studies of projects
in national parks or monuments or dedicated wilderness areas of national forests
may go forward without specific authorization by the Secretary ; City of Los
Angeles canceled application for a series of five dams in Kings Canyon National
Park; road threat to Joshua Tree National Monument stopped; extensive addi-
tions made to Olympic National Park; 79 wilderness, wild, and primitive areas
extant in national forests; program of standardizing and stabilizing more of these
areas through classification under Regulations U-1 and U-2 ; saving of large acreage
of Ponderosa pine in Gila Wilderness Area as result of hearings; Secretary of In-
terior McKay's ruling against proposed Mount Rainier tramway; increasing ef-
fectiveness of clean-up campaigns in certain areas; increase in organized defenders
and advocates of wilderness.

Among the losses Dr. Bryant listed: 289,000 acres of Joshua Tree National
Monument opened to mining; Glacier Peak wild area endangered; Johnson bill to
prohibit building dams in national parks and monuments died in committee; five-
mile road built through the Emigrant Basin Wilderness Area for tungsten mining.

Dr. Bryant also listed some major threats: legislation for constructing Echo Park
dam; proposed San Jacinto tramway; Wyoming's bill to buy and administer the
concessions in Yellowstone National Park; mining prospectors' being able to file
20-acre claims in national forests, and the right to file claims for cinder blocks,

FOURTH CONFERENCE 157

building stone, and other nonmetals; demand for hunting in state parks; mechani-
cal methods of transportation such as airplanes, helicopters, jeeps, and power boats ;
the overriding of established policies by certain government bureaus.

In concluding. Dr. Bryant pointed to certain hopeful trends in public understand-
ing including: greater consideration given in land-use policies to scientific, recrea-
tional, and wildlife values of wilderness ; greater understanding that multiple use
is a complicated policy and that the use of an area for all purposes may destroy it
for many of the uses. He added that threats to our national parks and wilderness
continue and that this necessitates continued viligance and hard work. The way
in which conservation groups have learned to work together is a source of en-
couragement.

View of the Wilderness Guide

Discussion Chairman: Norman B. (Ike) Livermore, organizer, High Sierra
Packers' Association

Panel Members: John Neubauer, Coffee Creek Ranch, Trinity Center; Arch
Mahan, President, National Forest Recreation Association; Sam Davis, Bar 7
Pack Train, Sequoia-Kings

Mr. Livermore introduced the panel and pointed out that the packers' stock is
apparently steadily decreasing, and that most packers supplement their income to
remain solvent.

Mr. Neubauer pointed out that though we recognize the necessity of building
roads, we neglect to say anything regarding the preservation of wilderness char-
acter where roads are concerned. Unused roads should be blocked off so that they
can return to nature. He also suggested that all groups interested in the "back
country" be consulted in this regard.

Mr. Davis reiterated that in true wilderness there cannot be roads, and went on
to point out that unused roads' entrances should be eradicated by bulldozing.

Howard Zahniser (Wilderness Society) suggested that areas set aside as roadless
should be mapped. He pointed out the threat of the Federal highway program to
Wilderness Areas by means of truck and side roads.

Mr. Davis discussed the problem of jeeps and motor vehicles tearing up trails.
One jeep causes as much damage as 100 head of horses. Though jeeps are appar-
ently only used in marginal areas, they threaten the heart of wilderness areas.
Wilderness Areas should be posted. The Forest Service watches packers with regard
to cross-country travel, but the Service is not so vigilant with regard to misuse
of access roads and jeep travel in restricted areas.

Mr. R. D'Arcy Bonnet (Forest Service) quoted from a letter written to Con-
gressman George Miller by E. L. Peterson, Acting Secretary of Agriculture, March
7, 1955:

"1. All cross-country travel by motor vehicles is prohibited in established wilder-
ness, wild, and primitive areas. These areas will be posted where necessary with
boundary signs and signs prohibiting public motor travel and these restrictions
will be fully enforced.

"2. National foresters are authorized to close any areas of a national forest to
cross-country motor travel, if, in their opinion, this is necessary for the prevention
of erosion, the protection of forest resources, or the furtherance of other author-
ized national forest activities; or is required to protect or manage wildhfe resources
in certain areas where additional hunter and fisherman controls are beheved de-
sirable and are worked out in cooperation with the State Game Wardens.

158 Wildlands in Our Civilization

"3. Areas so closed will be conspicuously posted with signs stating that motor
travel must be confined to designated roads and cross-country travel is prohibited."

Mr. Leonard discussed a bill pending in the California Legislature. This bill has
since become a law as an amendment to Section 332 of the California Fish and
Game Code, relating to wilderness areas. It makes it unlawful (a misdemeanor) to
use motorized transportation on water, air, or land within wilderness areas and
allows violations to be handled in State courts, whereas before such violations could
only be handled in Federal courts.

Mr. Mahan stated that more people need education regarding litter control.

Dr. Bryant said that many packers are now conducting anti-litter campaigns as
proposed at the First Biennial Wilderness Conference.

Mr. Livermore suggested that campsites be zoned regarding the size of groups
camping there and their length of stay.

View of the Wilderness Administrator: Park Wilderness Areas

Discussion Chairmen: Carl Russell, Field Naturalist, National Park Service;
George Collins, Regional Chief of Cooperative Activities, National Park Serv-
ice, San Francisco

Panel Members: Eivind Scoyen, Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings Canyon
National Parks; John Preston, Superintendent, Yosemite National Park;
Edward D. Freeland, Superintendent, Lassen Volcanic National Park; Elmer
C. Aldrich, Supervisor, Conservation Education, Division of Beaches and
Parks, State of California

Mr. Scoyen related the problems of conservation in general and wilderness pres-
ervation in particular to the over-all problems of waste and depletion of natural re-
sources. Nature protection treats the effects, not the causes. We should concentrate
on the prevention of waste. He also called attention to the fact that only a fraction
of the area of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks accommodates most of
those who use the parks. The primitive and natural areas of the parks are in-
accessible and "civilized man" generally does not go far from motor transport. We
should consider the parks as a whole as "wilderness" and tag the exceptions, rather
than classifying special portions of the parks as "wilderness." The primary ob-
jective of the National Park Service is to keep areas intact to pass on to future
generations.

Mr. Preston spoke of the growing pressure of visitors to national parks in gen-
eral and to Yosemite National Park in particular. Approximately a third of the
total population of the United States, was expected to visit the National Park
System in 19SS, and about 65,000,000 in 1975. However, the great benefits of
parks to the American people cannot be measured by these numbers. More than
a million visitors came to Yosemite National Park in 1954, of whom 97 per cent
came by auto. Three-quarters of the visitors to Yosemite came from California. If
the present rate of increase continues, 455,000 vehicles will enter the park in 1970.
Long-range planning points to increased day use of Yosemite with overnight ac-
commodations provided elsewhere.

Mr. Freeland discussed "management problems" in connection with keeping wild
areas wild, and to meet the needs of wilderness users who want freedom from
civilization and from people while they are in the back country. He spoke of
opening trails early, restricting grazing on soft ground, restricting large parties,
the promotion of good outdoor manners, and the need for more high-country rang-
ers. He also called attention to problems of fire, accidents, lost persons, sanitation,

FOURTH CONFERENCE 159

and fish and wildlife in back country. Results depend in large measure on adequate
staffs and the understanding of wilderness values.

Mr. Aldrich spoke of a number of programs and problems of the California Di-
vision of Beaches and Parks. California's beach program, which tries to give the
public as much coastline as possible, is second to none in the United States. How-
ever, the Division faces many problems arising from the pressure of logging, graz-
ing, mining, hunting, jeep tracks (which remain in deserts), and a demand for oil
royalties in place of beach values.

Included in the program of the Division is: strict regulation and protection of
Point Lobos; restriction of jeeps to washes, where their tracks will be obliterated;
restoration of original condition of the Great Valley at the Tule Elk Reserve.
It would be desirable to have a statewide planning group and regional park dis-
tricts. Mr. Aldrich also discussed buffer areas and the ability of state parks to take
pressure off the national parks.

John W. Spencer said hunters favor "public shooting grounds" in secondary areas
and are complaining of having second-rate hunting.

Mr. Aldrich said that his division was working with the Fish and Game Depart-
ment for development of "secondary areas" for hunting — areas which are substand-
ard for other purposes.

Fred Packard (National Parks Association) spoke of the need for better coordi-
nation in planning between ideal values of national parks and entertainment values
and pointed to the danger of the parks' being too concerned with entertainment
values. The pressure for such values should be diverted from the national parks.
Unless the people insist that parks be preserved for their primary values, the great
increase in travel may turn them into high-class resorts.

Carl Russell called for going beyond nature protection to putting conservation on
a mass-interest basis. Education can begin in the national parks; but the help of
such mass media as the press, journals, moving pictures, and TV is also needed.
It is especially important to reach youth. The public must be persuaded of the
importance of the noneconomic value of the parks.

A paradox results from back-country enthusiasts promoting the use of wild
areas.

George Collins said Alaska is a sample of what we faced in the continental
United States fifty to sixty years ago; but the increasing use of jeeps and planes
in Alaska today indicate very rapid development. Jeep tracks in north tundra
country last "forever," and the intrusion of jeeps and planes is harmful to wildlife
and wild values.

Clarence Rhode (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska) said that "develop-
ment" is now the keynote in Alaska and that changes are taking place rapidly.

Mr. Scoyen expressed the belief that the vast majority of visitors to the national
parks have a sincere appreciation of the parks.

View of the Wilderness Administrator:
National Forest Wilderness Areas

Discussion Chairmen: John Spencer, First Vice-President, Cahfornia Division,
Isaak Walton League of America and former Regional Forester, Colorado-
Wyoming Region, U.S. Forest Service; C. J. Olsen, Regional Forester, Utah

Panel Members: Ivan Sack, Supervisor, Toiyabe National Forest; Leon Thomas,
Supervisor, Sierra National Forest; Allen Miller, Supervisor, Stanislaus Na-
tional Forest; Guerdon S. Ellis, Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest

Mr. Sack stated that this session was concerned with the 79 wilderness, wild, and
primitive areas in national forests and defined each of these classifications, and

160 Wildlands in Our Civilization

called attention to the exceptions to the general rule for these areas that evidence
of man shall be excluded.

Mr. Thomas spoke of wilderness areas as multiple-use areas with certain uses
eliminated. Therefore they must be managed. Although mechanized transportation
is prohibited in these areas, ingress and egress by road may be permitted for mining
claims or other private lands within these areas. These roads may be classified as
special service roads and their use limited. Airplanes and motor boats are excluded
from wilderness areas but may be used for administrative and emergency purposes
and in areas where their use has long been estabhshed. Fire-lookout houses and
telephone lines are permitted where radio cannot be used. Where sanitary condi-
tions require it, latrines and garbage pits may be built. Litter is a special problem
in which education is required, starting at home. In the field, if we can clean up
campsites, we can keep them clean. A special clean-up roving patrolman on the
Sierra National Forest has helped greatly in cleaning camps and contacting the
public. There is need for additional patrolmen.

Mr. Miller spoke of the major threat of mining claims in wilderness areas. He
pointed to the ease with which claims may be made in national forests, including
wilderness areas, and the fact that roads may be built into them. A mining claim
becomes private property with all the freedom which that permits to destroy wilder-
ness values.

In a case where a mine claimant failed to abide by the terms of his road permit,
it took the Forest Service a year to get into federal court to get an injunction.
Seven violations in which jeeps which have gone off roads on the Stanislaus Na-
tional Forest are now being handled through normal procedures.

Mr. Sack pointed out that the pseudominer is the cause of most of the difficulties
caused by mining on national forests.

Mr. Ellis spoke of trails and fires on his forest, and of the plan to add Lake of
the Woods as a buffer zone in the Desolation Valley Wild Area. He also spoke of
the problem of getting enough men wilKng to stick it out to patrol wilderness areas
and thought that the low pay for this work was a factor.

John W. Spencer predicted that population will continue to increase rapidly and
will bring greater pressure on the 79 wilderness areas in national forests. Somebody
is always ready to develop some resource, and where natural resources are con-
cerned too many people think only in terms of the dollar. The archaic mining laws
of 1872 are the greatest threat to wilderness areas and they must be revised so that
surface values are segregated from subsurface mineral values. Wilderness areas
should be given legal recognition and placed on a permanent basis. They must be
made inviolate against mining claims as are wildlife sanctuaries. We must raise
hell against the spoliation of property that belongs to all of us.

C. J. Olsen spoke of the "illegitimate miner," and the need to take the mining of
sand, gravel, pumice, and cinders from the mining laws and put them under the
leasing act. At the same time he spoke of the need to separate surface values from
subsurface values and of the growing problem in this respect caused by the "uranium
epidemic." He further warned that the dredge miner is a coming problem and that
he should be forced to replace topsoil and to plant, and be required to handle
taihngs to protect streams from pollution.

He also spoke of the importance of marking boundaries of wilderness areas and
of having many buffer areas to protect them.

John Emerson (Regional Forester, Juneau, Alaska) referred to the feeling of
many Alaskans that there are now too many national reservations in Alaska, and
said they are thinking in terms of the development of Alaska through tourist travel,
forestry, mining, and fishing.

Dana Abell (Sierra Club) pointed out that Byron Beattie was unable to find a
man to replace his roving ranger when he left. Mr. Abell felt that men who do
summer work in wilderness areas must believe in wilderness.

Arch Mahan (National Forest Recreation Association) advocated getting in touch
with Congressmen to support legislation to amend mining laws.

FOURTH CONFERENCE 161

Fred M. Packard (National Parks Association) suggested that the mining prob-
lem be solved first on national forests and spoke of bills introduced in Congress
which would separate surface from subsurface rights. He urged that individuals as
well as conservation organizations should write to their Senators and Congressmen
in favor of such legislation.

Don Kelley (Editor, Pacific Discovery) called attention to the editorial in the
current issue of Pacific Discovery by Dr. Robert C. Miller.

Mr. Leonard called attention to Senator Anderson's bills to amend the mining
laws and suggested that in writing Congressmen it is better not to use numbers of
bills, but rather to advocate in general terms that the principles which one favors
be included in legislation.

Mr. Packard suggested that organizations refer to numbers of bills, but that in-
dividuals should refer to bills by name of sponsor, and state what the bill should
do.

Mr. Sack in closing the session pointed out that the Forest Service administers
laws which are approved by the people through Congress.

Dinner Program

Following the Conference Dinner, which was attended by some 360 conservation-
ists, Lois Crisler spoke on the adventures which she and her husband, Herb Crisler,
experienced during a year and a half in the wilderness of the Brooks Range in
Alaska. She illustrated her talk with splendid Kodachromes, which they took on
their trip, and moving pictures of their pet wolf pups in Colorado. Especially re-
markable was the friendly relationship which the Crislers developed with wild
wolves.

Scientific Values of Wilderness
Chairman: Prof. Harold C. Bradley

Speaker: Prof. A. Starker Leopold, Associate Professor of Zoology, University
of California; Member of the Council, The Wilderness Society

Discussion Chairmen: Dr. Robert C. Miller, Director, California Academy of
Sciences; Lowell Sumner, Biologist, National Park Service

Prof. Leopold analyzed in detail the scientific values of wilderness in relation to
the over-all problem of obtaining a deeper understanding of soil and land use. The
history of civilized man in his relations to the earth has been, on the whole, an
almost unending sequence of mistakes, upsets, and losses. Today, in the era of sci-
ence and enlightenment, we understand far more about the earth sciences than our
ancestors, but still we are not beyond making many additional mistakes. A con-
servative plan for our future should include provision for learning a great deal
more about the earth and its organisms so that we can keep our blunders to a
minimum, or, if we make them, so that we may know how they can be corrected.
As a part of this program of long-rang earth studies, a comprehensive system of
check areas, unexploited yet managed to simulate original conditions as closely as
possible, will be essential. And the research program based on these areas and else-
where as well, on lands in active use, should put some added emphasis on under-
standing the earth in its enormous complexity, correspondingly with a little less
emphasis on how we can more rapidly and effectively exploit the earth.

162 Wildlands in Our Civilization

A system of natural areas, managed to simulate original conditions as closely
as possible, would be an indispensable cog in the research program. The objective
would be to preserve the soils, plants, and animals in original communities. In
some areas periodic burnings would be required to recreate original conditions.
We must accept some responsibility for some experimentation and management.

However, in no case should all of an experimental area be committed to such
tinkering. It is important for scientific purposes to keep some check areas un-
managed.

There is no system of natural areas today. The national parks have the greatest
range of land and plant types. The national forest wilderness areas tend to be
the poorest sites. It is important that they retain their fringes of timber zone, as
for example in the Three Sisters and Yolla Bolly areas.

Robert C. Miller pointed to the primary importance of knowledge for its own
sake. Many "useless" discoveries have later become of economic importance. We
need natural areas for certain basic knowledge and unless we preserve such areas
this knowledge may be lost forever.

Mr. Rhode spoke of some of the choices that have to be made in game manage-
ment in Alaska; e.g., choosing between policies which favor moose or those which
favor caribou. In some parts of Alaska, man has developed fisheries down to a very
low spot. Fisheries took out trout to protect salmon eggs with result that stickle-
backs came in and now they take food of young salmon. Big game is eminently
suited as an important crop in Alaska.

Long-lasting scars are appearing on tundra north of the Arctic Divide as a result
of oil-prospecting tractors. Planes are preferable to jeeps; they do not leave scars.
Alaskans are the "fiyingest people in the world."

Management is desirable in some areas in Alaska. However, certain areas should
be designated as wilderness in the true sense, even though Alaskan public opinion
is at present against withholding land for this purpose.

Lowell Sumner said there was no deer or elk problem in the national parks prior
to 1900. After this date man changed the natural ecology, including a reduction in
numbers of mountain lions. Mountain meadows have also been altered by man
so that it is now difficult to find a meadow in its original condition. Perhaps a few
which have not been altered should be fenced and earmarked for research.

Dr. Bryant questioned why Dr. Leopold should have chosen a national park as
a place where man might recreate a forest with the aid of fire.

Dr. Leopold rejoined that the point he was trying to make was that the white
fir and cedar forests now appearing in the parks are man-made.

Mr. Leonard pointed out the difficulty of deciding what era to select in any at-
tempt to recreate a forest as it once was. He did not object to experimenting with
controlled burning in certain areas, but objected to its being done in national or
state parks.

Mr. Davis called attention to the fact that the word "conservation" means more
than "spiritual values." He felt that cattlemen and lumbermen are potential allies
to wilderness preservation and would go along with us on a complete conservation
program which would include water, timber, and soil as well as recreational and
wilderness values.

Prof. Richard G. Miller (Long Beach State College) discussed the question whether
ecological succession should be arrested or not, and suggested the value of wilder-
ness for study, as an exercise of the mind, for all students, not just for scientists.

Mr. Packard suggested that university students be encouraged to use national
parks and wilderness areas for study. Studies in such areas might be carried on
on a contract basis with the universities or the government.

Mr. Aldrich said we have no alternative but to preach to the masses the need
to preserve these natural areas.

Mr. Collins said that some research programs are being conducted through co-
operation between universities and the National Park Service.

Ana Mary Elliot (Citizens' Group, San Jacinto preservation) thought the great-

FOURTH CONFERENCE 163

est value of wilderness is the sense it gives of seeming greater than ourselves. Its
spiritual values are especially important to teach children.

Mrs. Edgar Wayburn spoke of using scientific values as a tool to stimulate in-
terest in the preservation of aesthetic values.

Fred Gunsky (Editor, Sierra Club Bulletin, monthly) spoke of making use of
the scientific values of wilderness as a means of stimulating interest in all the
values of wilderness. He went on to say that we are not alone in our philosophy,
which after all is a total point of view — a way of life with a religious aspect. We
must cooperate more with other conservation organizations and agencies and our
approach to them should not be too highbrow.

Mr. Spencer spoke of basic need to educate American people to the advantages
to themselves individually and to society of sensible conservation practices. The
next generation must be taught to appreciate what they have in the basic land re-
sources of the United States — the spiritual values as well as other values.

Mr. Sumner said there are about 73 ecological studies being conducted by vari-
ous institutions as well as by the Park Service in the national parks.

Dr. Wayburn spoke of the question sometimes asked of how much wilderness
we need. He felt that we cannot know how much at this time so that it is essential
to leave as much untouched wilderness as possible.

Building a Policy for Wilderness

Discussion Chairman: Fred M. Packard

Speakers: Prof. Harold C. Bradley, Howard Zahniser

Dr. Bradley spoke on classifying different types or degrees of wilderness. He dis-
cussed first, four major criteria for selecting wilderness lands for preservation:
(1) they should be in primitive condition, (2) all motorized transportation and
commercial developments should be excluded, (3) they should be free of man-
made sights and sounds, (4) they should be of adequate size.

He went on to describe three classes of wilderness. Class A has trails, not highly
engineered. These areas are large enough to compel one to camp out in traversing
them by primitive means. Some of these areas are in national parks; some in na-
tional forests; and some probably are left in areas under jurisdiction of Bureau of
Land Management, although not given any designation. Those in the last group
which are marred by jeep tracks would have to be removed from Class A.

Class B shows some signs of deteriorating influence of human occupancy, such as
burned cans, kleenex, and "other effluvia of our high culture." These signs may
include structures which cannot be concealed and, like similar artifacts, they pro-
duce a change in attitude of those who see them. However, structures, if not too
permanent, can be erased, as may even roads which do not become too deeply im-
printed.

Class C started as a perfect wilderness, but has been so highly marred and in
such a way that it may take from one to three generations, even under the most
careful protection, to bring an area of this class back to the quahties of Class B.

Dr. Bradley also discussed the economic, scientific, and spiritual values of wilder-
ness, and the use, protection, administration, and management of these areas.

Howard Zahniser spoke on the need for a clear policy of wilderness protection
with a strong legislative program to implement it. He expressed the fundamental
need of our civilization in its present phase for areas of wilderness, "a need that
is not only recreational and spiritual, but also educational and scientific, and essen-
tial to a true understanding of ourselves, our culture, our own natures, and our
place in nature." If we are to continue to have significant wilderness, we must
fulfill the basic need to preserve the large wildernesses in national parks, national

164 Wildlands in Our Civilization

forests, and other areas where they exist. We must protect wilderness conditions
as we know them. The commodities we need, as well as nonwilderness recreation,
should be provided outside of the areas reserved for wilderness. Our emphasis in
wilderness should be our humility rather than our dominance.

Mr. Zahniser went on to point out that it will be those areas which we de-
liberately set aside and protect which will be preserved and which will survive as
wilderness over the years. He felt that national (federal) ownership affords the saf-
est protection to wilderness and that therefore a federal program is needed. At pres-
ent, wilderness protection on the whole is incidental to other land purposes in
national parks and national forests; wilderness is not preserved as wilderness under
any stated legislative purpose.

We need a national legislative program to give needed protection to wilderness.
It should include recreational, educational, and scientific uses, but its primary pur-
pose should be the continuing protection of wilderness as wilderness. Basic legisla-
tion should establish a system of wilderness areas, including those under the juris-
diction of the National Park Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land
Management, and designate and protect such areas by law. These areas, however,
would continue to be under the jurisdiction of the agencies at present administering
them. Possibly a wilderness preservation commission may be needed to supple-
ment and coordinate the work of the present agencies. We should work toward the
formulation and passage of a bill or joint resolution of Congress to achieve this
program. If any areas are available for protection in a natural condition where the
Federal Government cannot or will not act, state and local governments should step
in to give the needed protection. Finally, Mr. Zahniser suggested that this confer-
ence set up a committee to work on these recommendations for a basic policy and
for basic legislation for wilderness protection.

Mr. Kelley suggested the need of a nationwide conservation program which
would get down to the grass roots, especially to reach children. We should also
work for the establishment of a nation-wide conservation organization or founda-
tion which would go farther than the existing individual groups and which would
seek funds for an educational program.

Mr. Packard spoke of the existing Natural Resources Council which is an or-
ganization of organizations in this field. He also discussed some of the problems
that would have to be worked out in drafting wilderness protection legislation.

Oscar Oswald (Manager, Pinecrest Lodge) discussed the recreational, educational,
and aesthetic values of the Emigrant Basin Wilderness Area in California and
threats facing the area. He urged that this area be withdrawn from mineral entry
and that no roads be built within it.

John R. Barnard (Sierra Club) said Emigrant Basin has practically been lost
in the past year, and urged prompt action for a bill to protect wilderness principles.

David R. Brower (Sierra Club) suggested that the staff which got this confer-
ence together should continue. Those who came to this conference should be kept
informed of developments in the wilderness field, perhaps by a bimonthly news-
letter. It should include the proceedings and recommendations of this conference.

F. W. Leighton (Tuolumne County Fish and Game Assn.) said that dams were
built years ago in the Stanislaus Wilderness Area (Emigrant Basin) under pres-
sure of fishermen who wanted to keep fish in the area and were disturbed at the
canyons' going dry almost every other year.

Charlotte E. Mauk (Sierra Club) said we are concerned primarily with conserv-
ing wilderness as pure wilderness and with preventing its misuse and damage by
overuse. We are also concerned with the important functions of semi-wilderness or
buffer wilderness. If we are to avoid overuse of wilderness, we must offer alterna-
tive places for fishing, hiking, auto camping, etc. ; but places suitable for these
activities are becoming as unavailable as remote wilderness. In order to protect
the farthest wilderness by not making it more accessible we must also take steps to
hold on to and increase areas for fringe forest-recreational activities. Let us give
consideration, Miss Mauk concluded, "to the protection of the protective areas."

I

FIFTH CONFERENCE 165

THE FIFTH BIENNIAL
WILDERNESS CONFERENCE,
March 15-16, 1957

Our Scenic Open Spaces — A Review

Chairman: David R. Brower, Executive Director, Sierra Club, and chairman
of the Natural Resources Council of America

[See the address beginning page 52 given by Mr. Brower, which has been
quoted in full. Following this a paper by Mr. Lowell Sumner was presented, which
has also been given in full beginning page 86. Then followed the discussion, which
is summarized below.]

Olaus J. Murie (President and Director, The Wilderness Society) said he would
not deny a certain aesthetic awareness by the beaver, but felt man has a more com-
plex problem than the beaver — he not only wants to keep alive, but also craves
certain aesthetic experiences which enrich his life. He wants quality in living, not
merely existence.

Sigurd F. Olson (President, National Parks Association) believed the human
mind, which has made possible our living standards of today, will be able to cor-
rect the population explosion before it is too late. He was appalled at the rapid
industrial and suburban development in formerly rural areas.

Fred Packard (Executive Secretary, National Parks Association) believed that
too many American businessmen do not comprehend the problems of conserva-
tion, but think rather in terms of expanded units of business. He was encouraged,
however, at the progress being made in bringing conservation information to the
industrial world.

Father Duryea stated that we have a trusteeship over our land and that as cus-
todians there is imposed on us a need for discipline in all things. Many people use
resources only for material gain thus not carrying out the full trusteeship which
has been given to us.

Pat Thompson (former Regional Forester, California Region) said he is a sup-
porter of wilderness. Some industries, he added, believe in conservation, which
means wise use — something more than locking up certain areas. Too much popula-
tion will sooner or later destroy wilderness, he predicted.

John W. Spencer (former Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region) believed
that the same forces which threaten wildlife populations also threaten man. He
hated to think the future of the human race would be to commit suicide and felt
confident that human intelligence would solve its problems. He spoke highly of the
educational work of the Sierra Club, Isaak Walton League, and other conservation
groups.

Wilderness and Culture

[See the address given by Mr. A. Starker Leopold which has been cited in full,
page 81. The discussion follows.]

166 Wildlands in Our Civilization

Richard M. Leonard (Sierra Club officer) said that he was on the side of the
optimists concerning the future of conservation and the welfare of mankind. "The
fact that man does have the unique mental capacity to be concerned with the
future, gives him the opportunity to do something about it. The very fact that
the explosion of population in recent decades has intensified dramatically the dam-
age to our natural resources, makes it possible to recognize the injury as being the
result of mistakes by man, and not the unfortunate whim of changes in climate or
'acts of God.' This knowledge of the cause of the damage enables man to plan cor-
rective action."

The accomplishments of the past several decades in the preservation of our nat-
ural resources, Mr, Leonard went on to say, indicate that we are gaining more than
we are losing. He pointed as examples to the increased strength or relatively recent
concepts of formal programs for conservation of forests, water, soil, and wildlife,
and the control of water and air pollution; and to "the unique American National
Park System and formal dedication of wilderness areas" which is spreading with
"increased strength to every continent." "The fact that mankind will so strongly
defend intangible values of his natural resources places him far above the 'social
animals' such as the ant, the bee, and the beaver, who do plan ahead, but primarily
for their own material benefit."

Charlotte E. Mauk (Sierra Club Director) said that people learn to appreciate
nature by contact with it; and that among other things we need to educate our
children to appreciate scenic values close at home, including those in our city parks.

What's Left?

Harlean James (Executive Secretary of the American Planning and Civic Asso-
ciation) as session vice-chairman opened the discussion of "What's left of our
scenic open spaces?" by briefly reviewing the background of the creation of our
National Park System, our system of National Forest Wilderness Areas, and the
preservation of wilderness and wildlife by the Fish and Wildlife Service, by the
Bureau of Land Management, and by tribal control on Indian lands.

Miss James spoke especially of the work of J. Horace McFarland and Frederick
Law Olmsted which resulted in the establishment of a Federal agency to administer
the national parks. When Stephen Mather and Horace Albright were brought to
Washington, the work of the combined forces resulted in the passage of the Na-
tional Park Act of 1916 which created the National Park System.

Locally

Harold S. Wagner (Metropolitan Park Board, Akron, Ohio) discussed problems
of the preservation of municipal, county, and state open spaces. "The preservation
of open spaces on all levels," he said, "is just as much a steady job as is the right
to liberty and the pursuit of happiness." When you build a public park through ac-
quiring the land and developing it, too often when the public arrives the scene
changes and in place of building for the people, "the task seems to become one of
preserving the park against the people." However, there are many fine examples of
open-space preservation in large and small cities in America and abroad.

Establishing county parks in suburban areas is made difficult by a feeling of
those who come out to the areas that they do not need such public facilities. Their
preservation is made difficult by suburban and state services seeking "free land,
meaning land acquired by another public agency." The problem of highways is
especially serious.

The referendum in New York State which defeated the attempts to build Panther
Mountain Dam and which protected the Adirondack Forest Preserve for the future
was one of the most important preservation victories on any level of government.

"It's in the towns and the cities and in the suburban fringes," Mr. Wagner con-
cluded, "that the support for open space and wilderness preservation is to be
found." He felt furthermore that "the knowledge and the appreciation of a major-

FIFTH CONFERENCE 167

ity of the people will be developed more largely out of pleasant experiences and
contact with fine examples of scenic open space and wilderness. . . . The boys
and girls, the young men and women, who find the value of scenic open spaces of
a local and even mediocre character will grow up into the job of preserving the
superlative areas. First of all we've got to believe that "nothing succeeds like suc-
cessors."

Nationally

Joseph W. Penfold (National Conservation Director, Izaak Walton League of
America) said that in order to answer the question, "What's left of our scenic
open spaces?" we must develop and agree to definitions and criteria for "scenic
open spaces," must gain general public acceptance of them, must inventory and
evaluate scenic open spaces, and recognize their relation to all our other resources.
Then, perhaps we can develop plans and programs by which they may become
an enduring part of the entire resource-use pattern.

"If scenic open space means space relatively untouched by man, our nation cer-
tainly had an abundance from the start" — about 600 acres per capita. The acreage
dropped to 60 in the ensuing 77 years, Alaska included. Today there are only
13.8 acres per capita. This figure will decline still further to 10 for our children
and 8 for our grandchildren — 8 acres each to satisfy all their wants, necessities and
luxuries, and within which they must satisfy their longings for space, for beauty,
for natural grandeur, for adventure, for all opportunity." "There is no synthetic
substitute for space."

The problem is made more complex by the large amounts of space taken by
airports, modern highways, suburbs, parking areas. Five hundred thousand acres
alone is taken up by America's automobiles and trucks just bumper to bumper.
Pressure on limited resources increases also through economic betterment — higher
wages, shorter hours, longer vacations, better roads, and faster transportation all
contribute.

In one state the number of fishermen has doubled since the war and they fish
twice as often. Hence fishing pressure has quadrupled. Similar pressure patterns
can be noted on all types of use of scenic open space. Technology is also dimin-
ishing open spaces. More efficient farming uses up the field corners to avoid "waste" ;
but it was these corners and fence lines which produced upland birds and game.
Trends in resource management before long will give wildlands more of the char-
acteristics of cultivated lands, "whether the objective be grass for livestock, forage
for deer, optimum yield of timber, watershed management for optimum water pro-
duction or trout hatchery programs."

To meet the obvious demands of the people, science has been efficiently applied
to resource management. "We use more paper so we plant and harvest more pulp-
wood. There are more fishermen, so we plant more fish. More people, more bath-
rooms and baths, more water-using gadgets, so we divert more streams. In none of
these efforts do we attempt to meet the total needs of the people. Hence, too fre-
quently in achieving one desirable objective we've been equally successful in thwart-
ing others."

We can recognize then that no resource use is independent of all others. "Pro-
tection of parks, wilderness, wildlife refuges, and other dedicated areas is no more
independent of what happens on all other lands than they are of a vastly increased
population with more time and inclination to make use of them. . . . Maybe
there's truth in the thought that preservation of wilderness will depend far more
on what we do outside of the wilderness than what we do with wilderness."
Wilderness preservation is an integral part of the overall land-management pattern.

"We must develop a conscience toward all scenic potentials if we are to hope
that any of them may endure."

"David Brower and the Sierra Club," Mr. Penfold continued, "have brilliantly
conceived and proposed a 'Scenic Resources Review.' " The Anderson-Aspinall Bill,
now before Congress, would set up a Commission to make a broad study, inven-

168 Wildlands in Our Civilization

tory, and evaluation of all outdoor-recreation resources encompassed in the club's
proposal. It would be important, in this connection, for conservationists to de-
velop a set of definitions and criteria which would result in refining standards for
evaluation of scenic resources with greater accuracy and precision. Mr. Penfold
referred to his suggestion at the Third Wilderness Conference of using the word
"isoprim" to designate the level of primitiveness or wildness, just as isobars and
isotherms depict the "contours" of barometric pressure and temperature on a
weather map. He suggested a new concept, isoscen (with a long e), to help depict the
peaks of scenic quality in America.

In conclusion he spoke of the "tremendous opportunity to demonstrate and secure
understanding of the truth that our scenic resources are very few in relation to our
ability to diminish or destroy them, and very extensive if we have the will to disci-
pline ourselves in accordance with our total needs."

Internationally

[See the address given by Mr, Lee M. Talbot quoted on page 75 after which
a discussion followed which is summarized below.]

William C. Yeomans (Alameda County, Calif.) thought that too many people
are unable to discover wilderness except by chance.

John Barnard (Mill Valley, Calif.) asked whether there are any preserves in
Europe equivalent to our national or state parks. Mr. Talbot responded that there
is no true wilderness as such, but there are some old hunting areas which once be-
longed to royal families.

Resolution of Conflicts

[See the address of Mr. David R. Brower cited on page 103 for the full text.]

Appraisal of the Day's Program

Marshall N. Dana (Chairman, Recreation Subcommittee, Columbia Basin Inter-
Agency Commission), after appraising the day's discussion, spoke of the need to
secure the support of informed, sympathetic, and active public opinion.

When the 100 million who visited our national parks and national forests last
year "pick up their beer bottles, their paper plates, their uneaten food, and their
Sunday supplements, I will be prepared to believe they are genuinely supporters of
the wilderness program. We are compelled to meet the test of our fitness for our
wilderness. We are called upon to think of wilderness in relationship to common
lives and common happiness of a great many people."

Mr. Dana posed the question of whether highways and airports which appro-
priate areas needed for wilderness do not take men into space which leads to exalta-
tion of mind.

In conclusion, he pointed out that wilderness is more than "a chunk of terrain";
it is "a state of mind, of heart, and soul. One may have a beautiful bit of wilder-
ness in his own spirit. Thus, he can enjoy a zone of calm which protects him from
the strains and stresses of life."

Martin Litton (Sierra Club and Travel Editor, Sunset Magazine) said that you
only can have wilderness in your mind if it exists somewhere on the ground; he
likened this relationship to a dollar bill, which has value not in its paper and ink,
but in what exists to back it up.

Mr. Olson thought people are learning fast to cherish wild places and not to
despoil them. He felt much more educational work was needed and spoke of what
Keep America Beautiful and other groups are doing in this direction.

"We are children of the earth," he added, and therefore must see tangible evi-
dences of wilderness to comprehend what wilderness really is.

Edgar Way burn (Chairman, Conservation Committee, Sierra Club) pointed out

FIFTH CONFERENCE 169

that changes are being made to wilderness day by day at hearings, by legislatures,
and by administrative bodies regardless of philosophies. Broad philosophies are not
enough; it is the little things that count in the fate of wilderness.

James P. Gilligan (Associate Professor of Forestry, Oklahoma A. & M.) sug-
gested that if we want wilderness we must face the following practical questions:
1. With the Forest Service tending more toward mechanization, are we willing to
keep out mechanization and let sizable acreages of wilderness burn? 2, Are we
willing to let large populations use wilderness? 3. Are we willing to pay higher
prices for minerals and accept lower-grade wood products? 4. Are we willing to
resist mass demands for better and shorter transportation routes? 5. Are we willing
to have less water available in wilderness areas than might be possible.

Miss Mauk said that although the actual cost per day for a wilderness trip has
tripled in the last several years, we are willing to pay this increased amount for a
true wilderness experience; but that we are unwilling to pay more for an impaired
resource that we no longer want.

Waning Wilderness of the Seashore

Toastmaster for the Evening Banquet: Bestor Robinson, Director, Sierra Club,
and chairman of the Secretary of the Interior's Advisory Committee on Con-
servation

Following the banquet, a group from the California Academy of Sciences dis-
cussed the "Waning Wilderness of the Seashore."

Robert T. Orr discussed the effect of pollution from dumps and sewage, and the
filling in of land for houses, roads, and airports, on ecological relations and animal
life on mudflats and tide-grass areas, and urged that more areas be set aside for
preservation in their natural condition, and that better antipollution laws be passed.

Allyn S. Smith, speaking on "Seashells and Serendipity," presented some similar
problems and described the overcropping of underwater fauna on the ocean bottom
near the seashore. Earl S. Herald told how the increase of underwater spearing in
certain areas has done away with certain species and is threatening others.

Robert C. Miller told of seashore reserves on the Pacific Coast, the program of
the California Division of Beaches and Parks, and of the need for legislation to
curb the depredations of skin divers. Certain underwater areas must be set aside
where the water, seabottom and shore are left undisturbed. He also spoke of na-
tional seashore reserves, including the wilderness beach with no roads in Olympic
National Park, and of his alarm that if shoreline roads are built in Olympic Park
they will destroy that wonderful shoreline area.

The National Wilderness System

Session Chairman: Howard Zahniser, Executive Secretary, The Wilderness
Society

Dr. Jacob Long (San Francisco Theological Seminary, San Anselmo) gave an
Invocation.

Bureau of Land Management

Edward Woozley (Director, Bureau of Land Management) described the ex-
panding work of the Bureau of Land Management in administering 178 million

170 Wildlands in Our Civilization

acres of unreserved public domain lands in continental United States and more
than 290 million acres in Alaska. He spoke of the impact of the $250 milUon
range-rehabilitation program in overcoming objections to the removal of potential
recreation sites from grazing lands and in reducing pressures for extension of
livestock grazing into wilderness and other recreation areas. He added that it
was his feeling that "the more we control erosion, grow grass and ranges, raise
more timber and husband and make optimum use of the minerals in proven
districts, the more land there will be that can be added to the already extensive
areas devoted to outdoor recreation and wilderness use." An inventory of present
and future needs, including recreation, would be helpful.

Unlike some other agencies, Mr. Woozley pointed out, the Bureau of Land
Management has no large areas specifically reserved for wilderness purposes. How-
ever, some of the lands withdrawn from the public domain in the past are now
a part of wilderness. When these lands were withdrawn they went under the
management of the agency requesting the reservation.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Don C. Foster (Portland Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs) commented
that most of those in the Indian Service "appreciate the public benefits that
would result from the establishment of a national wilderness system. In fact,
wherever Indian lands can and should be properly set aside as wilderness areas
without violating the rights and prerogatives of the owners, I am sure you will
find us among the ranks of the many agencies and organizations cooperating to
achieve the purposes that have been emphasized at this conference."

He pointed out that his agency, unlike the Forest Service, National Park Serv-
ice, and Bureau of Land Management, is not the custodian and administrator
of public lands. The agency acts as trustee for lands which belong either to In-
dian tribal groups or individual Indians, and must give full consideration to
the desires and interests of the Indian owners.

The principal problem facing the Indian Bureau today is "too many people
and not enough land." This has led the Bureau to place greater emphasis on
broader opportunities for Indians. Its three-point program includes a better
health program, improved educational facilities, and economic development, in-
cluding the development of reservation resources.

Mr, Foster spoke of the fine wilderness territory of the Four Corners area
where Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona meet. Because of its great
oil and gas potential it is now being "developed," returning large sums of money
to the Navajo Tribe. However, he pointed out that not many Indian lands have
such great economic values.

In conclusion he said: (1) no Indian lands should be set aside for wilderness
purposes unless the Indians approve such action; and (2) if lands are set aside
for wilderness areas, the Indians should be fully and fairly compensated for loss
of any other values that may be involved.

Fish and Wildlife Service

Daniel H. Janzen (Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife) said that
"wilderness is absolutely essential to a number of our interesting and important
species of North American wildlife." Natural areas on many National Wildlife
Refuges are kept free of habitat manipulation. They are not only important to
those animal species depending on such an environment; they also contribute
to the preservation of unique forms of plant ecology. They also are valuable for
comparing fauna and flora characteristics with those lands subject to multiple
use and management for game production.

In conclusion Mr. Janzen stated, "Wilderness areas are wildlife reservoirs which
often aid in the natural stocking of more accessible areas that are heavily used by
sportsmen, and they furnish very high quality hunting and fishing for those who
are willing to earn it. . . . It would be a disservice to the people to provide

FIFTH CONFERENCE 171

easy access to these wildlife resources, since the capacity of many of the present
wilderness areas, particularly those in high mountain country, is limited in their
ability to produce wildlife. . . . Because of the rather limited and fixed capacity
of these remote areas to sustain wildlife populations, they cannot support the
greatly increased hunting and fishing pressure that would follow in the absence of
strict control over access by the airplane and other mechanized transportation.
In other words, easy access to a wild area is often akin to killing the goose that
laid the golden egg. The hunting and fishing areas that remain accessible only
by trail or canoe will become of great value to the public as our population ex-
pands. The value represented in these areas can be quickly destroyed through
making them too easily available."

Luella Sawyer (Sierra Club, and Editor, Western Outdoor Quarterly) asked Mr,
Woozley what was planned to be done to rehabilitate lands in the southwest
taken by the military during the war but now abandoned. Mr. Woozley answered
that some have not been returned to the public domain, and others which have
been returned have not been decontaminated and that it is up to the military to
do this.

Mr. Packard asked Mr. Janzen what the impact is of what the military is
doing on land use and wildlife. Mr. Janzen answered that his bureau was under
constant pressure, but it has succeeded to date in warding off encroachments of
the military.

Dr. Murie complimented the Bureau of Land Management on its program to
fight forest fires in interior Alaska — a matter which for many years has been
ignored by Alaskans with the result that much of interior Alaska has been burned
up.

Turning to an issue on the Crow Indian Reservation, Dr. Murie said that a
number of years ago the Bureau of Reclamation decided to build a dam in Big-
horn Canyon, on Indian lands, naming it "Yellowtail Dam." The Crow Chief,
Robert Yellowtail, said to him several years ago, "They thought they would
win our approval by putting my name on the dam." However, recently the Bureau
of Reclamation has put before the Indians the bait of several million dollars
to be paid to them for the privilege of building the dam. Unfortunately, the
younger Indians have fallen for this bait, and want those millions of dollars at
the expense of losing one of the beautiful canyons of our country. The older
Indians, and Robert Yellowtail, still stick to the principles involved. This is an-
other instance of the unpreparedness of the Indians to cope with the wiles of the
white man, especially where exercised by a well-financed bureau of our government.

Dr. Leopold asked whether it would be feasible, in planning for wilderness
preservation in Alaska, to develop an interagency handling of resources for parks,
wilderness, and recreation. Mr. Woozley replied that there is need for coordina-
tion of the five federal land-management agencies in Alaska to prepare an overall
land-management plan including full recognition of the need for the establishment
of large wilderness areas to preserve various species of fauna and flora and the
scenic values of Alaska.

Clarence Rhode (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska) agreed that we should
work toward a coordinated program to plan for wilderness preservation in Alaska.

Seth Gordon (Director, Department of Fish and Game, California) asked Mr.
Woozley whether all coastal lands are now withdrawn from further disposal.
Mr. Woozley replied that his bureau had suspended action on all applications
for disposal of any land bordering the Pacific Ocean until the completion of a sea-
shore study.

Forest Service

Richard E. McArdle (Chief, U.S. Forest Service) said that the Department of
Agriculture has recognized the desirability of protecting and preserving wilderness
for a long time, and will continue to do so. The Forest Service believes that wil-
derness is a valuable use of national forest resources.

172 Wildlands in Our Civilization

Mr. McArdle traced the development of the National Forest wilderness system
from the first formal recognition of wilderness as a significant national-forest
use in the early 1920s to the present, which finds us with 12 wilderness areas
totaling 3,969,000 acres; 23 wild areas totaling 815,000 acres; 3 roadless areas
totaling 814,000 acres; and 43 primitive areas totaling 8,252,000 acres — a grand
total of 81 units with 13,850,000 acres. He also mentioned three new wilderness
areas which have been proposed: Tracy Arm-Fords Terror area in Alaska, Jar-
bridge area in Nevada, and Glacier Peak in Washington.

He continued, "Use for wilderness purposes of large areas of national forest
is an important use, a desirable use . . . but it is only one of many important
uses of a national forest. . . . There is not enough national forest to satisfy all
the needs of our growing population. . . . That is why we stress multiple use
and sustained yield of resources and services" for the greatest good of the greatest
number in the long run. ''Wilderness is a special problem because use for this
purpose does not lend itself to sharing an area with many other uses."

"Wilderness areas must be managed and protected in order to remain useful
as wilderness. That is a difficult and often rather costly job. Although legislation
might be helpful in resolving some of these difficulties, many of them are ad-
ministrative problems which can't be solved by legislation."

"Formal establishment as a wilderness area does not guarantee preservation of
resource value. Fire, insects, disease, and windthrow are constant threats not only
to forests in the wilderness area, but there is also the ever-present danger that
big fires or disease or insect epidemics may spread to adjoining lands outside the
wilderness." "Quick access is the key to fire control"; but you don't have it if
you have wilderness.

Mr. McArdle added that wilderness costs something and these costs are in-
creasing. Part of them is "measured in terms of what you can't have if you do
have wilderness — less timber, less forage, less water, less opportunity for people
to enjoy the best scenery, and so on."

"Practically every wilderness area contains timber, minerals, water, and vast
opportunities for mass recreation which in time may be needed by our growing
population. If the need for these resources becomes critical there will be public
demand to modify the wilderness so that these resources may be used. The time
may come when there will be a showdown between fully appraised wilderness
values versus other values."

"The best way to avoid that pressure on wilderness," Mr. McArdle suggested,
"is to provide an adequate supply of other resources by good multiple use in non-
wilderness areas." Similarly, to meet growing pressure for mass recreational use,
including greater accessibility to motor transport, the best job is needed to
develop and protect all the mass-recreation opportunities on all land ownerships.
The Forest Service's "Operation Outdoors" is a part of this program.

In regard to the wilderness bills introduced in Congress, Mr. McArdle said
he is "In sympathy with the general objectives of these proposals and believes
that it would be helpful if Congress were to enunciate a policy on wilderness so
that administrators of public lands would have some direct guidance from Con-
gress as to the protection and preservation of wilderness and the objectives of
wilderness management. This statement," he added, "should not be construed as
specific approval by me or by the Forest Service of the [present] specific legis-
lative proposals. . . . We are studying them carefully. The Department has not yet
made its report, and I am not at liberty to discuss the bills except in very general
terms."

Mr. Brower, referring to Dr. McArdle's major concern with fire protection in
wilderness and the limitations of smoke jumpers, asked if the Forest Service
could develop a research program in the use of "tamed fire" as opposed to wild
fire, and could also develop figures relating to fire roads vs. helicopters with re-
spect to present relative costs and trend in relative costs. He urged that the Service

FIFTH CONFERENCE 173

not limit its concept of the use of wilderness to those few who actually set foot
on it, and pointed out that wilderness, like the rare California condor, was of value
to many people who were content merely to know that it still existed. He urged
the Service to make an appraisal of the long-range value of all the multiple uses
of the forests that were compatible with wilderness, and that the Service under-
take to learn the human carrying capacity of wilderness.

National Park Service

Conrad L. Wirth (Director, National Park Service) said "an adequate National
Park System should have plenty of room in it for wilderness." The idea of wil-
derness and its preservation, however, involves "far more than mere roadless-
ness, although an important element of a wilderness preservation program is the
retention of large roadless areas. As we build a road into Wonder Lake in Mount
McKinley National Park that does not mean that the park is no longer a wilder-
ness. The road is a wilderness road, to bring people into the wilderness, as John
Muir advocated. Some magnificent wilderness can be seen from our roads."

"Wilderness preservation is complex and positive." In the national parks we try
to preserve the integrity of the intricate interrelated mechanism of nature — the
wholeness or completeness of nature. "Under this concept, the building of a road
or trail into it may be far less destructive of the natural character than are such
activities as hunting, predatory-animal control and the grazing of domestic live-
stock,"

Muir "was not one who urged that wilderness should be preserved for wilder-
ness' sake. Far from it! He worked tirelessly to preserve wilderness and to bring
people into it for the pleasure and good they would get out of it. This, to my
way of thinking, is the very essence of the park conservation program."

The Park Service recently has prepared a statement on preservation of natural
and wilderness values in national parks. It explains that "preserving the natural
character and integrity of the parks means protecting them from logging, grazing,
mining, water storage projects, hunting and trapping, and, if possible, acquiring
the inholdings of private lands before they are put to uses utterly destructive of
park values."

To learn how to use wilderness best, Mr. Wirth continued, is difficult and the
many different views "over the kind of facilities to be provided for park visitors
are growing pains in the slowly evolving art of wilderness use." Therefore because
of the intangible values involved and diversity of reaction to them, our approach
to the problem must be a cautious one."

In general, different parks with different characteristics require different plans
of development. The Park Service therefore has no set formula or plan of de-
velopment for all parks, just as it has no one master plan for trails and architecture
or road systems.

Mr. Wirth went on to discuss briefly some of the opportunities of Mission 66,
and of the perfecting of a more adequate interpretive program. "Educational or
interpretive programs, properly carried out, are the crowning achievement in wil-
derness use for they help bring the understanding, appreciation, and pleasure in
wilderness that Muir must have had in mind . , ."

Mr. Wirth also spoke of the Park Service's cooperative efforts which he hoped
would lead to formulating and publishing "a national outdoor recreation re-
sources plan" by 1961. It will include "a systematic and comprehensive analysis
of the wilderness and wild land needs of the country, and a systematic plan
for the preservation of the wilderness and wild lands required to meet those needs."
He asked for cooperation in formulating and working out such a plan. The need
for this recreation survey to National Parks was due to their being faced "with a
flood-control project," he concluded. "The flood pouring in on us is people. It
must be controlled or it will leave a ruined National Park System in its wake.
We cannot meet our responsibilities for park protection by meeting the flood at

174 Wildlands in Our Civilization

the park gates and trying to control it from there. We need dams and diversions
upstream and this will call for action on the part of many agencies."

Discussion time was devoted to the completion of the Park Service statement.

Summary of the Day

Howard Zahniser, as summarizer, pointed out that the day's discussion had
brought out certain assumptions about wilderness. 1. All our wilderness is in
lands serving some other purposes. 2. Our civiUzation is such that it is destined
to occupy for its purposes all the lands we have unless it is checked. 3. Only
those areas can be expected to be preserved as wilderness which are deliberately
so set aside for preservation, 4. Our best practical opportunity for wilderness
preservation is through the Federal Government, although in some states wilder-
ness may be preserved by state governments. Lands in private ownership are
not areas available for such planning in perpetuity. S. Our wilderness preservation
purposes include perpetuity. "We are trying to keep unchanged by man areas that
have grown through the eternity of the past and, although we stand in awe at
our presumption, we dare to plan that they may so persist through the eternity
yet ahead."

"In the United States, wilderness for the future depends on our success in de-
veloping a policy and program that provides for the preservation of wilderness
as such, by our Federal Government, with a presumption of perpetuity." We
understand, however, that "there can be no sound program for the preservation
of something that does not include provision for addition, modification, elimina-
tion. The best we can do is to perpetuate the opportunity for perpetuity."

In wilderness we are deaUng with a human concept. "We describe an area as
wilderness because of a character it has — not because of a particular use it serves.
Retaining that character, it can still serve varying and various purposes. Wilder-
ness is not only land with a certain character that can be preserved in varying
circumstances. It has been so preserved, for the areas of wilderness we now have
are all areas which serve some stated purpose other than the preservation of wil-
derness as such."

For example, the wilderness of each national park is back country, or fore-
ground, to some unique scenic splendor or complex of wildlife or flora. "We
owe the leaders of the National Park Service a great debt for the way in which
they have fostered the wilderness idea, but we must recognize that the wilderness
concept is compatible with, not identical to, the national park idea — an enrich-
ment certainly of the national park purpose, but not the genesis." Similarly, while
wilderness, wild, primitive, and roadless areas serve essential purposes in the
National Forests of which they are a part, they have retained their wilderness
character to a great extent because the administrators of national forests have
so managed them. A further example of the secondary reasons for which wilder-
ness areas are preserved is the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in which
wilderness is kept in connection with the administration of the area for wildlife
protection.

Despite the difficulties facing wilderness continuance, we still have a remark-
able heritage of wilderness available for our use and preservation. There are about
164 units of our federal wilderness preservation resources comprising some 55
million acres. In addition there are a dozen or so state areas of wilderness ag-
gregating about three milHon acres.

Mr. Zahniser spoke briefly of the discussions at previous Biennial Wilderness
Conferences that had to do with the development of Federal legislation to protect
a National Wilderness System. He quoted the resolutions adopted by the Fourth
(1955) Conference and then gave an account of development during the past
two years which led to the introduction of bills for this purpose in both House
and Senate.

FIFTH CONFERENCE 175

Mr. Zahniser went on to describe the main types of units under various agencies
in our wilderness system, and then analyzed the main features of the National
Wilderness System Preservation Bill which has been introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Hubert H. Humphrey and co-sponsored by Richard Neuberger and eleven
other Senators of both political parties from coast to coast (S. 1176), and by
John P. Saylor, Lee Metcalf, and five other Congressmen in the House.

It was observed from the floor that the Conference might consider broader
problems of natural-resource conservation than just those related to wilderness.

Mr. Leonard said that "a complex civilization of two and one-half billion people,
increasmg rapidly every day, makes a certain amount of specialization necessary
in order to give thorough consideration to each of the myriad parts of the whole.
While there have been a number of broad conferences, such as that conducted
by Resources for the Future in 1953, most conferences on conservation of natural
resources are devoted to an intensive study of a particular part of the whole. Thus
we have had the hearings of the President's Water Resources Policy Committee,
the annual National Watershed Congress, the American Mining Congress, the
North American Wildlife Conference, and a number of conferences on water-
and air-pollution control, petroleum conservation, and regional timber conferences.
Most of those meetings on specialized phases of conservation of natural resources
have concentrated on commodity and economic values, and have only incidentally
touched wilderness and other intangible values.

"That is the reason why the Biennial Wilderness Conferences have concentrated
on an intensive study of the problems of preservation and use of Wilderness, with
contributions this year by more than 400 experts from all parts of North America.
The broad conservation of the commodity and economic values of all our natural
resources is essential to enable mankind to afford to preserve a substantial portion
of the intangible values. But unless at least one of the many resource conferences
gives special attention to those intangible values, they may be lost in the apparent
urgency of trying to live by bread alone."

THE WILDERNESS IDEA

Tomorrow's Wilderness Edited by Francois Leydet

The situation of today's wilderness resources and the outlook for
the future is examined from many vantage points at the Eighth
Biennial Wilderness Conference by a number of notable discussants
including: Paul Brooks, Fairfield Osborn, Wallace Stegner, Na-
thaniel Owings, and Stewart Udall. Foreword by Howard Zahniser,
32 pages of photographs by Ansel Adams.
264 pages and 32 pages of illustrations, 6 x 9.2 inches, $5.75.

Wilderness: America's Living Heritage Edited by David Brower

"The Sierra Club has rendered a signal service to conservation in
publishing this book. Made up of the talks given by 28 distinguished
citizens at the Seventh Biennial Wilderness Conference sponsored
in San Francisco by the Sierra Club, j;h^ book is both a testament
of faith and a guide for conservationists everywhere." — Library
Journal

Among the contributors were Justice William O. Douglas, Sigurd
Olson, Ansel Adams, Joseph Wood Krutch, Gerard Piel, and Paul
B. Sears. ^ , ^ ^

224 pages, 28 pages of illustrations, 6 x 9.2 inches, $5.75.

The Meaning of Wilderness to Science Edited by David Brower

This handsome book consists primarily of contributions by emi-
nent scientists from various parts of the world to the Sixth Bien-
nial Wilderness Conference. It reveals why our life scientists must
fight for what they alone have the eyes to perceive. Contributors:
Daniel B. Beard, Stanley A. Cain, Ian McTaggert Cowan, Ray-
mond B. Cowles, Frank Fraser Darling, Luna B. Leopold, Robert
Rausch, and G. M. Trevelyan.

144 pages, plus 48 of varnished illustrations, 6 x 9.2 inches, endpaper map, nve
wilderness cards inserted, paper over board, $5.75.

Wilderness and Recreation

A report on resources, values, and problems

Result of a year's work by Wildland Research Center for the Out-
door Recreation Resources Review Commission, this volume is the
most complete compilation of data on American wilderness now
readily available. The Sierra Club edition of this important study
is cloth bound and contains sections on commercial resources, eco-
nomic analysis of wilderness areas, the wilderness v^acationists, and
wilderness regulations and administration. Included are detailed
maps, charts, and photographs.
Sierra Club edition, cloth, 352 pages, $5.75.

For further information about the Sierra Club, see the inside of
the jacket.

Contributors

David Brower

Executive Director, Sierra Club
John Collier

Former Commissioner for Indian Affairs

Bruce M. Kilgore

Former Managing Editor, Sierra Club

A. Starker Leopold
Associate Professor of Zoology,
University of California;
Past President, Wildlife Society

Contents

Wilderness — Conflict and Conscience
De Facto Wilderness: What Is Its Place?

Wilderness and Modern Man
Wilderness and the Self-interest of Man
Wilderness and Culture

Walla jeStegner Introduction:
Prof essor of English, The War Between the Rough Riders

Director, Stanford University Writing Program and the Bird Watchers

Lowell Sumner * Are Beavers Too Busy?

Biologist, National Park Service

Lee Merriman Talbot Wilderness Overseas

Graduate Student in Wildlife Conservation,
University of California

Howard Zahniser How Much Wilderness Can We Afford to Lose?

Former Executive Director and Editor,
The Wilderness Society

■ {